Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has passed, and the President has 

signed, a resolution of disapproval of the accountability and State plans final 

regulations that were published on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 86076). This guidance 

document is unaffected by that resolution and remains applicable.

Non-Regulatory Guidance: English Learners 

and Title III of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the 

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

September 23, 2016

(Revised)

January 2, 2019 
2

Table of Contents

Purpose..........................................................................................................................................................3

Introduction & Executive Summary .............................................................................................................3

A-Fiscal Issues..............................................................................................................................................5

General .....................................................................................................................................................5

Supplement-not-Supplant..........................................................................................................................6

State and District Administrative Costs..................................................................................................10

Subgrants to LEAs...................................................................................................................................11

Local Uses of Funds................................................................................................................................13

B-English Language Proficiency Standards................................................................................................15

C-Language Instruction Educational Programs ..........................................................................................18

D-Educators of English Learners................................................................................................................22

E-Parent, Family, & Community Engagement ...........................................................................................27

F- Early Learning........................................................................................................................................31

G-Immigrant Subgrant and Serving Immigrant Students............................................................................34

H-Reporting and Data Collection................................................................................................................37

I-Long-term English Learners.....................................................................................................................38

J-Former English Learners..........................................................................................................................39

K-English learners with disabilities............................................................................................................41

Addendum Standardized Entrance and Exit Requirements.........................................................................44

Appendix A: Glossary.................................................................................................................................51

Appendix B: Resources by Topic Area...................................................................................................... .53
3

Purpose

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) has determined that this guidance is significant 

guidance under the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance 

Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007). See 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-07.pdf. Significant guidance is nonbinding and does not create or impose new legal requirements.

The Department is issuing this guidance to provide States and local educational agencies (LEAs) with 

information to assist them in meeting their obligations under Title III of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA). This 

guidance also provides members of the public with information about their rights under this law and 

other relevant laws and regulations.

Once this guidance is in effect (after the 2016-2017 school year) this guidance supersedes the 2008

Notice of Final Interpretations of Title III of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB), and the 2008 Guidance on the Supplement Not Supplant Provision of Title III of the ESEA.

If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please email us your comment at

OESEGuidanceDocument@ed.gov or write to us at the following address:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20202

For further information about the Department’s guidance processes, please visit 

www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/significant-guidance.html.

Introduction & Executive Summary

In the last several decades, English learners (ELs)1 have been among the fastest-growing 

populations in our Nation’s schools. ELs comprise nearly 10 percent of the student population 

nationwide, and in many schools, local educational agencies (LEAs) and States, account for an 

even higher percentage of the student population.

2 ELs also comprise a highly diverse group of 

students who bring with them valuable cultural and linguistic assets, including their home 

languages. Yet despite these many assets, ELs face significant opportunity and academic 

achievement gaps compared to their non-EL peers. For example, in school year 2013-2014, the 

high school graduation rate for ELs was just 62.6 percent, compared to 82.3 percent for all 

students.3 With effective, research-based supports and access to excellent educators, ELs can

1 In the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, the term, ‘English learner’ replaces the term ‘limited English proficient’ 

used in section 9101 of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Please see the glossary 

section of this document for the definition of “English learner.”

2 Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III Grant Program. (October 2015) Available at:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.htm

3 National Center for Education Statistics (2014). Table 1. Public high school 4-year adjusted cohort graduation 

rate (ACGR), by race/ethnicity and selected demographics for the United States, the 50 States, and the District of
4

achieve English language proficiency and perform academically at the same high levels as their 

non-EL peers.

The ESSA recognizes the unique needs of ELs, including by acknowledging the heterogeneity 

within the EL subgroup (e.g., recognizing separate groups of ELs such as English learners with 

disabilities, recently arrived ELs, and long-term ELs). It moves several provisions relevant to 

ELs (e.g., accountability for performance on the English language proficiency assessment) from 

Title III, Part A of the ESEA as amended by the ESSA (Title III) to Title I, Part A (Title I) of the

ESEA. This guidance addresses Title III State formula grants, as well as limited portions of Title 

I pertaining to ELs.4 As States and LEAs begin to implement these changes to the ESEA, we 

encourage close collaboration among staff who administer Title I and Title III programs.

This guidance addresses how Title III funds may be used to provide supplemental services that 

improve the English language proficiency and academic achievement of ELs, including through 

the provision of language instruction educational programs (LIEPs) and activities that increase 

the knowledge and skills of teachers who serve ELs. All services provided to ELs using Title III 

funds must supplement, and not supplant, the services that must be provided to ELs under Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 

(EEOA), and other requirements, including those under State or local laws.5 This guidance does 

not address the inclusion of ELs in academic content assessments in reading/language arts, 

mathematics, and science, English language proficiency assessments, accountability and school 

improvement under Title I, or the new Title III requirement that all States establish and 

implement standardized statewide entrance and exit procedures for ELs, as these topics will be 

addressed through rulemaking.

In general, the ESSA amendments to Title I and Title III take effect beginning on July 1, 2017. 

Thus, we recommend that States and LEAs begin planning for the implementation of these 

changes in fall or winter 2016. While this guidance largely focuses on changes due to the ESSA 

amendments, it also clarifies issues that have been addressed in previous guidance documents on 

ELs6 and Title III and addresses new topics that stakeholders recommended through Department

Columbia: School year 2013–14. Retrieved from: 

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2013-14.asp. 4 Title III includes two types of subgrants to LEAs: EL formula subgrants (See ESEA section 3111 and 3114(a)) 

and immigrant children and youth subgrants. (ESEA section 3114(d)). Title III also includes two discretionary

grant programs, which are not addressed in this guidance. (See ESEA Sections 3112 and 3131).

5 As recipients of Federal financial assistance under ESEA and other Department-funded grant programs, and as 

public entities, States and LEAs must also not discriminate against ELs in their educational programs based on race, 

color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Federal laws 

that prohibit discrimination on these bases. 6 Please also see the 2016 policy issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department

of Education Policy Statement on Supporting the Development of Children who are Dual Language Learners in 

Early Childhood Programs which addresses bilingualism and nurturing the native and home languages of our 

youngest learners. The statement and its recommendations can be found here: 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/dll_policy_statement_final.pdf.
5

outreach. In general, existing Departmental guidance7 on ELs and Title III is applicable through 

the 2016-17 school year. After that time, please refer to this guidance instead.

This guidance can assist States, LEAs, and schools to support ELs in achieving college and 

career readiness, participating in our schools and society, and maintaining their bilingualism as 

an asset. The Department hopes that this guidance will strengthen State and local efforts to 

improve educational outcomes for ELs and immigrant children and youth; connect States, LEAs, 

and schools with promising practices and helpful resources; and promote effective LIEPs for all 

ELs. Finally, recognizing the diversity of the EL population and the need for supports from 

cradle to career, this guidance touches upon distinct populations of ELs (e.g., English learners 

with disabilities and long-term ELs) as well as supporting ELs in early learning programs. See 

the Appendices of this guidance for a glossary and resources.

A-Fiscal Issues

General

A-1. Several provisions in the ESEA8 regarding ELs have moved from Title III to Title I. 

How does that affect a State’s responsibility with respect to Title III funds, including 

monitoring an LEA’s use of Title III funds?

Each State is still responsible for using Title III funds in a manner consistent with Federal law 

and guidelines, and retains all of its oversight responsibilities to ensure that its LEAs spend Title 

III subgrants in a manner consistent with Federal law and guidelines. See 34 CFR §§76.700-

76.783 for general State administrative responsibilities.

Under Section 3113(b)(3)(F) of the ESEA, each State is required to conduct Title III fiscal 

monitoring of its LEAs. See 2 CFR §§200.328, 200.331 for State obligations to conduct 

subrecipient monitoring. A new provision added by the ESSA permits the use of consolidated 

State administrative funds for fiscal support teams, which can be used for technical assistance to 

LEA subgrantees. (ESEA Section 8201(b)(2)(I)).9 State Educational Agency (SEA) Title I staff 

should work together with Title III staff to ensure a coordinated approach to serving ELs in the 

State.

7 This includes the 2008 Notice of Final Interpretations of Title III of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB), and the 2008 Guidance on the Supplement Not Supplant Provision of Title III of the ESEA,

however, the nondiscriminatory requirements of Title VI and the EEOA, as discussed in the 2015 EL Dear 

Colleague Letter, will remain valid and are not affected by ESSA. The 2015 Dear Colleague Letter about EL 

students and LEP parents jointly released by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice is available 

at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf. 8 Throughout this document, unless otherwise indicated, citations to the ESEA refer to the ESEA, as amended by the 

ESSA.

9 Note that LEAs can also consolidate administrative funds (see ESEA section 8203), and they can use State and 

local funds to expand the reach of fiscal support teams without violating any non-supplanting requirement of any of 

the programs contributing funds. (ESEA section 8203(d)(2)).
6

Supplement-not-Supplant

A-2. Does the amended supplement-not-supplant provision in the ESEA that applies to 

Title I also apply to Title III funds?

No. The provision in Section 1118(b) of the ESEA setting forth requirements that Title I funds 

supplement and do not supplant non-Federal funds does not apply to Title III. Title III does, 

however, contain its own provision prohibiting supplanting of other Federal, State, and local 

funds, and that provision was not changed by the ESSA. (See Section 3115(g) of the ESEA). In 

general, it is presumed that supplanting has occurred: 1) if the SEA or LEA uses Federal funds to 

provide services that the State Educational Agency (SEA) or LEA was required to make 

available under other laws; or 2) the SEA or LEA uses Federal funds to provide services that the 

SEA or LEA provided with non-Federal funds in the prior year. See OMB Compliance 

Supplement, Department of Education Cross-Cutting Section, Part 4, Section 84 Section 

III.G.2.2, at 4-84.000-16, available at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a133_compliance/201

6/2016_compliance_supplement.pdf. These presumptions are rebuttable if the SEA or LEA can 

demonstrate that it would not have provided the services in question with non-Federal funds had 

the Federal funds not been available. Therefore, just as prior to enactment of the ESEA, as 

amended by the ESSA, Title III funds cannot be used to fulfill an LEA’s obligations under Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA). These 

obligations are explained in greater detail in question A-3.

A-3. What are the legal obligations of States and LEAs to ELs under Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOA?

Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOA, all States and LEAs must ensure 

that ELs can participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs and services. To 

meet their obligations under Title VI and the EEOA, LEAs must, for example:

• Identify and assess all potential EL students in a timely, valid, and reliable manner;

• Provide EL students with a language assistance program that is educationally sound and 

proven successful, consistent with Castañeda v. Pickard and the Supreme Court decision 

in Lau v. Nichols;

• Provide sufficiently well prepared and trained staff and support the language assistance 

programs for EL students;

• Ensure that EL students have equal opportunities to meaningfully participate in all 

curricular and extracurricular activities;

• Avoid unnecessary segregation of EL students;10

10 As further explained in Section I. E. of the 2015 EL DCL (pages 22-24), while EL programs may require that an 

EL student receive separate instruction for a limited period of time, EL programs may not unjustifiably segregate 

students on the basis of national origin or EL status—thus, LEAs must carry out their chosen EL program in the 

least segregative manner consistent with achieving the program’s stated educational goals.
7

• Ensure that EL students who have or are suspected of having a disability under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 are identified, located, and evaluated in a timely manner and that the 

language needs of students who need special education and disability related services 

because of their disability are considered in evaluations and delivery ofservices;

• Meet the needs of EL students who opt out of language assistance programs;

• Monitor and evaluate EL students in language assistance programs to ensure their 

progress with respect to acquiring English proficiency and grade level content 

knowledge, exit EL students from language assistance programs when they are proficient 

in English, and monitor exited students to ensure they were not prematurely exited and 

that any academic deficits incurred in the language assistance program have been 

remedied;

• Evaluate the effectiveness of a school district’s language assistance program(s) to ensure 

that EL students in each program acquire English proficiency and that each program is 

reasonably calculated11 to allow EL students to attain parity of participation in the 

standard instructional program within a reasonable period of time; and

• Ensure meaningful communication with limited English proficient (LEP) parents.

Additional information about States’ and LEAs’ legal obligations under Title VI and the EEOA 

can be found in a 2015 Dear Colleague Letter about EL students and LEP parents jointly released 

by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice (hereinafter “DCL”), available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf.

Recommendations on promising practices to ensure that language instruction educational 

programs (LIEPs) facilitate improved English language proficiency and academic outcomes can 

be found in the Department’s English Learner Tool Kit, available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/eltoolkit.pdf.

A-4. Does the Title III supplement-not-supplant prohibition mean that States and LEAs 

can no longer use Title III funds for State or LEA EL-related activities that have moved 

from Title III to Title I?

States and LEAs may continue to use Title III funds to carry out activities relating to ELs that 

have been moved from Title III to Title I in the circumstances described below. The inclusion of 

English language proficiency standards and assessments, and the inclusion of progress in 

attaining English proficiency as a separate component of the Statewide accountability system 

under Title I, will help facilitate a unified Statewide approach to supporting ELs across Title I 

and Title III, and should provide a necessary focus on the nation’s growing EL population and 

high-quality services for these students.

11 As further explained in the 2015 EL DCL (see, e.g., page 6), Castañeda v. Pickard requires that the program and 

practices used by the school (as part of the language assistance program) be reasonably calculated to implement 

effectively the educational theory adopted by the school.
8

A State and its LEAs may use Title III funds for activities relating to ELs that were previously 

required under Title III and are now required under Title I as long as:

1) The specific use of funds is consistent with the purpose of Title III and meets Federal 

guidelines for “reasonable and necessary costs” (See 2 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Parts 200 and 225);

2) The specific use of funds is supplemental to the SEA’s or LEA’s civil rights obligations 

to ELs under Title VI and the EEOA (See question A-2 and A-3 above); and

3) The SEA or LEA can demonstrate that it is also using Title III funds to conduct activities 

required under Title III (for SEAs, see ESEA Section 3111(b); for LEAs, see ESEA 

Section 3115(c)).

Examples of State activities that have moved from Title III to Title I include:

• Alignment of English language proficiency standards to State content standards(ESEA 

Section 1111(b)(1)(F));

• Alignment of English language proficiency assessments to English language proficiency 

standards (ESEA Section 1111(b)(2)(G)(ii));Establishment of English language 

proficiency goals and indicators for accountability purposes (ESEA Sections 

1111(c)(4)(A)(ii), 1111(c)(4)(B)(iv)), and

• Identification of interventions to address ELs’ academic achievement and progress in 

attaining English language proficiency (ESEA Sections 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), 

1111(c)(4)(D)).

Examples of LEA activities that have moved from Title III to Title I include:

• EL parental notification regarding LIEPs and related information (ESEA Section

1112(e)(3));

• Parental participation (e.g., regular EL parent meetings) (ESEA Section 1116(f)); and

• Reporting to the State on the number and percentage of ELs achieving English language 

proficiency (ESEA Section 1111(h)(2)).

A-5. May a State or LEA use Title I funds for the State or LEA EL activities that have 

moved from Title III to Title I?

A State or LEA may generally use Title I funds for the EL activities listed in A-4 above, 

although an LEA must ensure that it provides Title I schools with sufficient funds from nonFederal sources to provide services that are required by law for ELs before using Title I funds in 

the school. (See ESEA Sections 1114(a)(2)(B), 1118(b)).12 Although Title I funds may not be 

used to provide general aid to schools without express statutory authority but rather must be used 

for activities that are reasonable and necessary to operate a Title I program, the new inclusion in 

Title I of the EL activities included in A-4 makes it clear that ELs are a critical part of Title I

12 This document does not address the specific application of the new Title I supplanting prohibition in ESEA 

section 1118(b) to the use of Title I funds for ELs.
9

funded programs and, thus, these activities are an allowable use of Title I funds. For example, 

given that ESEA now includes English language proficiency (ELP) as a component of Title I 

accountability, a State might use part of its Title I State activity funds for specific technical 

assistance to LEAs that have a consistently low-performing EL subgroup.

A-6. What ESEA funds are available for States to develop or align English language 

proficiency assessments?

There are specific funds available under the ESEA to help States develop or align their English 

language proficiency assessments. Among other uses, grants to States under Section 1201 of the 

ESEA (“Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities”) may be used specifically to 

develop or improve “assessments for English learners, including assessments of English 

language proficiency....” (ESEA Section 1201(a)(2)(C)); in addition, Enhanced Assessment 

Grants under ESEA Section 1203(b)(1) may be used for the same purpose. The authorized uses 

of these funds for developing an English language proficiency assessment include developing an 

alternate English language proficiency assessment for certain English learners with disabilities 

who cannot take the regular English language proficiency assessment even with 

accommodations. Neither the supplement-not-supplant provision in Title III (ESEA Section 

3115(g)) nor the supplement-not-supplant provision that applies to funds under Title I (ESEA 

(Section 1118) apply to these grants for State Assessments, which are provided under Title I, 

Part B.

The use of Title III funds to develop the annual English language proficiency assessment is not 

permitted because it would violate the supplement-not-supplant provision. This is because, 

under Title VI and the EEOA, a State must monitor EL students’ progress in achieving English 

language proficiency to ensure that EL students are making appropriate progress with respect to 

acquiring English. (See DCL, referenced in A-3 above). Assuming that a State uses its annual 

Statewide English language proficiency assessment to meet this civil rights obligation, the use of 

Title III funds to develop the annual English language proficiency assessment would constitute 

supplanting.

Please note, however, that a State may use Title I or Title III administrative funds, either alone or 

consolidated with other ESEA administrative funds (see ESEA Section 8201(f)) to align the 

English language proficiency assessment with English language proficiency standards, although 

the amount of State Title I and Title III administrative funds is restricted by statute (see ESEA 

Sections 1004(a) and (b) and 3111(b), respectively).

A-7. What ESEA funds are available for States or LEAs to administer English language 

proficiency assessments?

Formula grants to States under Sections 1201 of the ESEA may also be used for administering 

English language proficiency assessments (e.g., to pay for substitute teachers or materials, or for 

the cost of scoring State English language proficiency assessments); in addition, the statute 

authorizes the use of these funds for the provision of appropriate accommodations for English 

learners with disabilities on the English language proficiency assessment. (See ESEA Section 

1201(a)(2)(A)).

An LEA generally may not, however, use Title III subgrant funds to administer the annual 

English language proficiency assessment (e.g., to pay for substitute teachers or materials or for
10

the cost of scoring State English language proficiency assessments). As stated above, under Title 

VI and the EEOA, States and LEAs must monitor EL students’ progress in achieving English 

language proficiency to ensure that EL students are making appropriate progress with respect to 

acquiring English. States and LEAs generally use the annual English language proficiency 

assessments to meet these obligations, and, therefore, for those States and LEAs, use of Title III 

funds to administer annual English language proficiency assessments is not permitted because it 

would violate the supplement-not-supplant provision in ESEA Section 3115(g) (See questions A2 and A-3 above for more information).

A-8. May an LEA use Title III funds to develop or administer a screening assessment used 

to identify ELs?

No. The obligation to identify all ELs is part of an LEA’s civil rights obligations under Title VI 

and the EEOA (See question A-3 above for more information). Therefore, an LEA may not use 

Title III funds for purposes relating to identification of ELs, including a screening assessment, 

home language survey, or other related tools.

State and District Administrative Costs

A-9. How may a State use Title III State-level activity funds?

Consistent with the prior reauthorization of the law, a State may only reserve up to 5 percent of 

the total State grant for State activities (ESEA Section 3111(b)(2)). Each State must still reserve 

at least 95 percent of Title III funds for LEA subgrants. The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 

did, however, make changes to the authorized uses of the State-level activity funds, including by:

• Permitting the use of State-level activity funds to establish and implement the 

standardized Statewide entrance and exit procedures for ELs required under ESEA 

Section 3113(b)(2); and

• Expanding the use of State-level activity funds for professional development to include 

the improvement of teaching skills to meet the needs of ELs. (ESEA Section 

3111(b)(2)).

In addition, a State may use up to 50 percent of Title III State-level activity funds, or $175,000, 

whichever is greater, for planning and direct administrative costs of implementing the Title III 

State formula grant program. (ESEA Section 3111(b)(3)). The ESEA, as amended by the 

ESSA, made two significant changes to this provision: (1) the percentage of State-level funds 

that can be used for planning and administrative costs has been reduced from 60 percent to 50 

percent, and (2) the portion (up to 50 percent) of State-level funds that the State reserves for 

administrative costs must now only be used for direct administrative costs. This gives each State 

the flexibility to apply its restricted indirect cost rate to the rest of its State activity funds. For 

example, a direct administrative cost could be the part of the salary of a State employee who 

works on Title III activities, if that portion of the salary can be directly attributed and allocated to 

the Title III grant and is not otherwise recovered as an indirect cost. See 2 CFR §§ 200.412-417 

for classification of direct versus indirect costs.

A-10. How much of an LEA’s Title III formula subgrant may the LEA use for 

administrative costs?
11

An LEA may use no more than 2 percent of its LEA funds for administrative costs. (ESEA 

Section 3115(b)). However, as a result of the ESSA changes, any funds the LEA reserves for 

administrative costs may be used only for direct administrative costs. This provides an LEA 

with flexibility to apply its restricted indirect cost rate to the portion of its subgrant that it does 

not reserve for administrative costs. See references in question A-9 above for guidance on direct 

versus indirect costs.

A-11. May an LEA consolidate its Title III subgrants with other funds as part of a 

schoolwide program under Title I?

Yes. An LEA may consolidate its Title III funds in a schoolwide program pursuant to the 

requirements of Section 1114(a) of the ESEA. Under that Section, the LEA is not required to 

maintain separate fiscal accounting records by program if it maintains records that demonstrate 

that the schoolwide program, considered as a whole, addresses the intent and purpose of each 

Federal program from which it consolidates funds.

In addition, in a school that consolidates Title III funds in a schoolwide program, the Title III 

supplement-not-supplant provision would not apply to the Title III funds; rather, the specific 

non-supplanting provision in Section 1114(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA would apply. An LEA must 

ensure that each schoolwide program school receives funds from non-Federal sources to provide 

services that are required by law for students with disabilities and ELs before using Title I funds 

in the school. (ESEA Section 1114(a)(2)(B)).

A-12. May an LEA spend funds under both Title I and Title III on the same activities for 

ELs?

Yes. It is possible for an LEA to combine Title I and Title III funds for the same EL-related 

purpose, even if it is not in a schoolwide program. However, note that most Title I funds are 

allocated to schools, while Title III funds are allocated to LEAs, and not schools. Thus, as an 

example, an LEA could use a combination of Title III and Title I funds for the salary of a 

supplemental EL math specialist for a Title I high school to serve low-achieving ELs, assuming 

that supplement-not-supplant guidelines are met (See questions A-2 and A-3 above).

Subgrants to LEAs

A-13. What are State obligations for awarding Title III formula subgrants to LEAs?

A State must award formula subgrants for a fiscal year by allocating funds in a timely manner to 

each LEA in the State with an approved Title III plan. (ESEA Section 3114(a)). In determining 

what constitutes a “timely manner” for making subgrants, a State should ensure that its LEAs 

receive Title III funds with enough time to spend the funds in a thoughtful and meaningful way 

during the school year for which the funds are intended to be used (i.e., so LEAs can offer 

services to ELs at the beginning of the school year). Additionally, a State should award 

subgrants in a manner that is timely enough to ensure that LEAs are able to engage in timely and 

meaningful consultation with private school officials prior to making any decisions that may 

affect the participation of eligible private school students and teachers as required under ESEA 

Section 8501. If a State does not award the subgrants until late in the school year, it would likely 

not have met the requirement to award Title III subgrants “in a timely manner.”
12

A-14. Under what circumstances may a State reallocate Title III EL formula subgrant 

funds to LEAs?

As under previous law, a State may reallocate funds made to an LEA that will not be used forthe 

purpose for which the allocation was made to another LEA or other LEAs “...in accordance with 

such rules as it determines to be appropriate...” that the State “...determines will use the amount 

to carry out that purpose.” (ESEA Section 3114(c)). The State must be able to justify its 

determination that the LEA will not use the Title III funds for the intended purpose. For 

example, a State may determine that an LEA will not use the funds for the purpose for which 

they were intended if the LEA has not obligated a significant portion of the funds after 24 

months or if the LEA is a single-school LEA that closes at some point during the period of 

availability of the funds.

Each State must have business rules in place that will govern how it reallocates funds. For 

example, the State’s business rules may require that the State reallocate the funds to all 

remaining eligible entities, based on the formula it used to make the initial Title III formula 

allocations. Alternatively, a State may use criteria to determine to which LEAs it will award 

reallocated funds. Such criteria may include, for example, whether the LEA will use the funds 

for their intended purpose, how the funds will help EL students, the LEA’s need for additional 

funds as demonstrated by the amount of Title III funds the LEA has remaining, and the LEA’s 

commitment to using the funds within the period of availability. Whether the State uses 

additional criteria, the State must reallocate funds on a formula basis based on the number of ELs 

in the LEA or LEAs receiving the reallocated funds. (ESEA Section 3114(c)).

A-15. How can LEAs form a consortium to receive a Title III EL formula subgrant?

An LEA may join with other LEAs to form a consortium of LEAs to receive Title III formula 

funds under the ESEA. This option is the same as under the previous version of the ESEA. 

Under this arrangement, one of the LEAs must serve as the fiscal agent for the consortium, and is 

legally responsible to the Department for the grant. See generally 34 CFR § 76.303. The option 

of joining a consortium may be especially relevant to a small LEA that does not, on its own, have 

a sufficient number of ELs to meet the requirement in ESEA Section 3114(b) that a Title III 

subgrant be at least $10,000. Such a small LEA could, for example, form a consortium with 

other small LEAs to receive Title III funds or enter into an agreement with a neighboring larger 

LEA to receive services provided by the larger LEA. Some examples of consortia models in 

place in various States include:

• The LEA fiscal agent provides consortium-wide services, such as professional 

development and supplemental instructional materials, directly to all LEAs in the 

consortium.

• The LEA fiscal agent enters into a contract with another entity to provide services to all 

of the member LEAs.

• The LEA fiscal agent distributes a portion of the consortium’s allocation to each member 

LEA based on the number of ELs in each LEA.

A-16. What requirements pertain to the formula that States must use to award Title III 

immigrant subgrants?
13

A State must reserve not more than 15 percent of the State Title III allocation for subgrants to 

LEAs in the State that have experienced a significant increase in the percentage or number of 

immigrant children and youth who have enrolled in schools in the LEA in the current fiscal year 

compared to the average of the last two fiscal years. (ESEA Section 3114(d)). Prior to the 

ESSA, States had to compare the percentage or number of immigrant students in the preceding 

fiscal year to the average of the prior two fiscal years in order to determine which LEAs had a 

significant increase in the number or percentage of immigrant children and youth. Under that 

prior law, some States and LEAs raised concerns that the comparison data did not reflect the 

most recent changes in immigration patterns. The Department recognizes, however, that a State 

may not have current year data at the time it would generally award the immigrant subgrants. In 

that instance, the State may decide to award immigrant subgrants using estimates based on the 

prior year’s data, and adjust those subgrant awards as necessary once the current year’s data 

become available.

As under the previous law, each State will continue to determine what constitutes a “significant 

increase” and may change that definition from year to year without requesting approval from the 

Department. See Section G below for more information about immigrant subgrants.

A-17. What is the “maintenance of effort” requirement for LEAs that applies to the Title 

III subgrants?

The maintenance of effort requirement in Section 8521 of the ESEA applies to Title III subgrants 

and is similar to the provision previously in Section 9521 of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, 

with two major exceptions. First, under the amended ESEA, when an LEA fails to maintain 

effort, a State is not required to reduce its subgrant in the first year of the LEA’s failure to 

maintain fiscal effort. A State must reduce a subgrant, however, if an LEA has also failed to 

maintain effort for one or more of the five immediately preceding fiscal years. Second, the 

maintenance of effort requirement gave the Secretary the authority to waive the requirements if a 

waiver would be equitable due to either (1) exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as 

a natural disaster, or (2) a precipitous decline in the LEA’s financial resources. (ESEA Section 

8521(c)). For the situation of “exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances,” a change in the 

LEA’s organizational structure was added as an example under the ESEA, as amended by the 

ESSA.

Local Uses of Funds

A-18. What are the required LEA uses of Title III EL formula subgrants?

Prior to the ESSA, an LEA was required to use its Title III funds for two required activities: 

professional development and providing an LIEP. Under Section 3115(c)(1)-(3) of the ESEA, an 

LEA must still conduct these two required activities, but must also now conduct a third activity: 

providing and implementing other effective activities and strategies that enhance or supplement 

LIEPs for ELs, which must include parent, family, and community engagement activities, and 

may include strategies that serve to coordinate and align related programs.

An LEA may also use Title III funds for a number of permissible activities listed in Section 

3115(d) of the ESEA. These activities include, for example, providing community participation 

programs, family literacy services, and parent outreach and training to ELs and their families,
14

and improving the instruction of ELs, which may include English learners with disabilities, by 

acquiring or developing educational technology and accessing electronic networks. The ESSA 

also adds a number of new permissible activities under Title III, including for example, uses 

related to developing or implementing LIEPs in preschools that are coordinated with other 

relevant programs and services, and offering early college high school or dual or concurrent 

enrollment programs or courses designed to help ELs achieve success in postsecondary 

education.

As noted, all uses of Title III funds must be supplemental; therefore, an LEA may not use Title 

III funds to meet its obligations under Title VI and the EEOA, including the obligation to 

provide EL students with a language assistance program that is educationally sound and proven 

successful and the obligation to ensure meaningful communication with parents who have 

limited English proficiency. See question A-3 for more information about LEAs’ obligations 

under Title VI and the EEOA.

A-19. May an LEA use Title III funds to improve EL access to rigorous coursework?

Yes, as noted in question A-18 the ESEA now explicitly allows an LEA to use Title III funds to 

support dual or concurrent enrollment programs or early college high schools for ELs. (ESEA 

Section 3115(d)). This new provision presents a valuable opportunity to promote college and 

career readiness for ELs and to bridge their transition to postsecondary education. Title III funds 

cannot, however, be used to fulfill an LEA’s obligations under Title VI and the EEOA, including 

an LEA’s basic obligation to provide an LIEP to all ELs in the district that is educationally sound 

and has been proven successful.

A-20. What constitutes a dual or concurrent enrollment program?

Section 8101(15) of the ESEA defines “dual or concurrent enrollment program” as a “program 

offered by a partnership between at least one institution of higher education and at least one 

[LEA] through which a secondary school student who has not graduated from high school with a 

regular high school diploma [also defined in the ESEA] is able to enroll in one or more 

postsecondary courses and earn postsecondary credit that –

(A) is transferable to the institutions of higher education in the partnership; and

(B) applies toward completion of a degree or recognized educational credential as 

described in the Higher Education Act of 1965.”

A-21. What constitutes an early college high school?

Section 8101(17) of the ESEA defines “early college high school” as a partnership between at 

least one LEA and at least one institution of higher education that allows participants to 

simultaneously complete requirements toward earning a regular high school diploma and earn 

not less than 12 credits that are transferable to the institutions of higher education in the 

partnership as part of an organized course of study toward a postsecondary degree or credential 

at no cost to the participant or the participant’s family.

A-22. If an LEA provides a dual or concurrent enrollment program for all students who 

qualify, and some of those students are ELs, can it pay for some of the entire dual or 

concurrent enrollment program with Title III funds?
15

The LEA could prorate the cost based on the number of ELs and use Title III funds for only the 

ELs in the program, assuming that there was no supplanting problem (i.e., there would be a 

supplanting problem if the program was previously funded from State or local funds, or is 

required by law, or is not supplemental to the district’s basic civil rights obligation).

A-23. May an LEA use Title III funds to implement all or part of the comprehensive 

support and improvement plan it is required to develop and implement under Section 

1111(d)(1) of the ESEA?

An LEA may use Title III funds to implement part of a comprehensive support and improvement 

plan under ESEA Section 1111(d)(1) to the extent that the activities are allowable under Title III 

and do not violate the supplement-not-supplant provision. (See question A-3.) For example, it 

may be appropriate for an LEA serving a school that is identified for comprehensive support and 

improvement under ESEA Section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(III) due to chronic low performance of the 

EL subgroup in that school, to use a portion of its Title III funds to provide, as part of the 

comprehensive support and improvement plan, supplemental academic support to ELs and 

additional professional development to teachers of ELs, if these uses of Title III funds do not 

violate the supplement-not-supplant provision.13 As another example, it may be appropriate for 

an LEA serving a school that is identified for comprehensive support and improvement under 

ESEA Section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(I) because it is among the lowest-performing five percent of all 

schools in the State to use a portion of its Title III funds to provide differentiated support aimed 

at improving the English language and academic proficiency of low-performing ELs in the 

school, if these uses of Title III funds do not violate the supplement-not-supplant provision.

However, an LEA may not use Title III funds to provide supports to non-ELs in the school.

B- English Language Proficiency Standards

B-1. What are the requirements for English language proficiency standards?

Section 1111 (b)(1)(F) requires that “each State plan shall demonstrate that the State has adopted 

English language proficiency standards that:

• (i) are derived from the 4 recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading, and 

writing;

• (ii) address the different proficiency levels of English learners; and

• (iii) are aligned with the challenging State academic standards.”

These requirements in Title I are essentially identical to the requirements that were previously in 

Title III of the ESEA prior to the ESSA amendments.

13 Whether a use of funds is consistent with the supplement-not-supplant provision depends upon a context-specific 

determination of whether the use of funds is necessary to meet civil rights requirements under Title VI and the 

EEOA. Improvements to an LIEP that are necessary in order to meet basic civil rights requirements could not be 

funded from Title III.
16

B-2. Must a State change or update its English language proficiency standards due to the 

passage of the ESSA?

Not necessarily. As long as a State’s English language proficiency standards meet the 

requirements set by the ESEA in Section 1111(b)(1)(F) (See question B-1), a State need not 

change or update the English language proficiency standards it implemented under the ESEA 

prior to the ESSA amendments. However, as stated in B-1, all States must demonstrate in their 

State plans that they have adopted Statewide ELP standards that are aligned with the State’s 

academic content standards.

B-3. Must English language proficiency standards be implemented in every LEA that 

enrolls ELs in the State?

Yes. Section 1111(b)(1)(F) requires that “[e]ach State plan shall demonstrate that the State has 

adopted English language proficiency standards that [meet the requirements listed in B-1 

above]”, and section 1111(b)(2)(G) requires that “[e]ach State plan shall demonstrate that 

[LEAs] in the State will provide for an annual assessment of English proficiency of all English 

learners in the schools served by [SEA]” and that these assessments “shall be aligned with the 

State’s English language proficiency standards.”

B-4. What does it mean for English language proficiency standards to be “aligned with” 

academic standards?

The ESEA requires that a State’s English language proficiency standards be “aligned with” a 

State’s challenging academic standards. (ESEA Section 1111(b)(1)(F)). This requirement is 

consistent with that of the former Title III requirement that the State’s English language 

proficiency standards must be “aligned with achievement of the challenging State academic 

content and student academic achievement standards...” (ESEA as amended by NCLB Section 

3113(b)(2)).

Just as under the former law, a State’s English language proficiency standards must be aligned 

with the challenging academic standards in the content areas of reading/language arts, 

mathematics, and science. It is especially important that the English language proficiency 

standards reflect the language demands of each content area. For example, as mathematics 

assessments become increasingly language-heavy, it is essential that ELs learn the corresponding 

English vocabulary of mathematics in order to succeed in that subject area. A State’s English 

language proficiency standards should reflect research on the process of language acquisition 

and, based on this research, reflect the elements needed for EL students to acquire the English 

language skills necessary to meet academic content standards. As such, English language 

proficiency standards should be designed to assist teachers in moving EL students towards both 

proficiency in the English language and proficiency on a State’s academic content standards.

The goal of English language proficiency standards is to build a foundation in the English 

language that will enable EL students to succeed in each academic content area.

Consistent with the requirement that the English language proficiency standards address the 

different proficiency levels of ELs (ESEA Section 1111(b)(1)(F)), the highest English language 

proficiency standards, addressing the “proficient” level, should correspond to the proficient level 

of the content area standards.
17

B-5. What is the difference between English language proficiency standards and content 

standards in reading/language arts?

Reading/language arts standards are not the same as English language proficiency standards. 

English language proficiency standards should be specifically developed for students who are 

ELs and define progressive levels of competence in the acquisition of the English language. 

English language proficiency standards must be derived from the four language domains of 

speaking, listening, reading, and writing. (ESEA Section 1111(b)(1)(F)). Reading/language arts 

standards, on the other hand, describe what all students should know and be able to do in the 

specific academic content area of reading/language arts.

B-6. What is the difference between the English language proficiency assessment and the 

content assessment in reading/language arts?

State English language proficiency assessments are designed for ELs and measure students’ 

proficiency in the English language. English language proficiency assessments measure 

students’ proficiency levels and progress in the four domains of language: speaking, listening, 

reading, and writing. (ESEA Sections 1111(b)(1)(F), 1111(b)(2)(G), 3113(b)(3)(B)).

Reading/language arts assessments, on the other hand, measure what students know and are able 

to do in the specific academic content area of reading/language arts. Reading/language arts is a 

content area in which States may administer assessments in a student’s native language for up to 

three years (or five years in certain unique circumstances), for an EL for whom such assessment 

would yield more accurate information on what the student knows and can do in the content area. 

(ESEA Section 1111(b)(2)(B)(ix)). Some States, for example, provide a Spanish version of their 

reading/language arts assessment whereas the English language proficiency assessment must be 

administered in English because the very purpose of the English language proficiency 

assessment is to measure a student’s proficiency in the English language.

B-7. If a State develops challenging State academic standards in subjects in addition to 

reading/language arts, mathematics, and science, should the State English language 

proficiency standards also be aligned with those academic standards?

Yes. The alignment of English language proficiency standards with the challenging State 

academic standards is crucial for ensuring that ELs, as they develop English language 

proficiency, are able to achieve college- and career-readiness to the same extent as their non-EL 

peers. If a State establishes challenging academic standards in additional subjects, then the 

State’s English language proficiency standards should also be aligned with those standards. For 

example, many States have established academic standards in social studies and have aligned the 

English language proficiency standards to the social studies standards.

B-8. What is the relationship between the State English language proficiency standards and 

the State English language proficiency assessment?

Title I requires that a State’s English language proficiency assessments be aligned with its 

English language proficiency standards. (ESEA Section 1111(b)(2)(g)). This strengthens the 

assessment’s validity, which is not only required under Title I but is also consistent with the 

obligation under Title VI and the EEOA to use valid and reliable criteria for assessing English 

proficiency. The Department plans to issue guidance for the peer review of State English
18

language proficiency assessments, including the alignment of these tests to English language 

proficiency standards. (ESEA Section 1111(a)(4)).

C- Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEP)

C-1. What are the requirements for LIEPs?

Title III of the ESEA replaces the expectation in the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, that LIEPs be 

“scientifically based” with a new expectation – that LIEPs be “effective.”

Specifically, for States:14

• A State may use Title III funds to provide technical assistance to LEAs on identifying 

and implementing effective language instruction educational programs and curricula for 

teaching ELs (ESEA Section 3111(b)(2)(D)(i)); and

• A State must ensure that EL formula subgrants to LEAs are of sufficient size and scope to 

allow the LEAs to carry out effective language instruction educational programs for ELs 

(ESEA Section 3113(b)(3)(D)).15

Similarly, an LEA must:

o Use Title III funds for effective approaches and methodologies for teaching ELs 

(ESEA Section 3115(a));

o Increase the English proficiency of ELs by providing effective language 

instruction educational programs that meet the needs of ELs and demonstrate 

success in increasing (A) English language proficiency; and (B) student academic 

achievement (ESEA Section 3115(c)(1));

o Use Title III funds in ways that build its capacity to continue to offer effective 

language instruction educational programs that assist English learners in meeting 

challenging State academic standards (ESEA Section 3113(b)(3)(E)); and

o Include in its local plans for a Title III subgrant a description of the effective 

programs and activities that will be provided, including language instruction 

educational programs (ESEA Section 3116(b)(1)).

Under Title VI and the EEOA LEAs must provide a language assistance program that is 

effective—educationally sound and proven successful. For additional information about LEAs’ 

obligations in this area, see the English Learner Students and Limited English Proficient Parents 

DCL referenced in A-3 above. Please see A-2 and A-3 for additional information about LEAs’ 

obligation to use Title III to supplement, not supplant, funds used to meet this civil rights 

obligation.

C-2. How may a State incentivize more effective LIEPs at the local level?

14 Emphasis added in each bullet that follows. 15 As noted in A-2, under Title VI and the EEOA, LEAs must provide ELs with a language assistance program that 

is effective—educationally sound and proven successful. Title III funds may be used to supplement, but not 

supplant, State and local funds necessary to meet these civil rights obligations.
19

Similar to the ESEA prior to the ESSA amendments, a State may use State-level Title III funds 

to provide financial awards to LEAs that have significantly improved the achievement and 

progress of ELs in meeting—

• The State-designed long-term goals established under ESEA Section 1111(c)(4)(A)(ii), 

including measurements of interim progress towards meeting such goals, based on the 

State’s English language proficiency assessment under ESEA Section 1111(b)(2)(G); and

• The challenging State academic standards. (ESEA Section 3111(b)(2)(E).

Given that the attainment of English language proficiency and high academic achievement for 

ELs are key purposes of Title III, we encourage States to use a portion of their State-level funds 

to provide these types of financial awards.

C-3. What criteria should States and LEAs receiving Title III funds use to ensure that ELs 

are provided “effective” LIEPs, as required under the ESEA?

In addition to the requirements outlined in question C-1 above, we encourage States and LEAs 

that receive Title III funds to adopt criteria to ensure that LIEPs are effective in helping ELs 

achieve English language proficiency, as well as helping them meet the State’s challenging 

academic standards. At a minimum, LIEPs should be outcomes-driven; an LIEP should 

demonstrably result in improved English language proficiency and academic achievement for 

ELs to be considered “effective” for purposes of the Title III requirements.

Additionally, in analyzing whether an LIEP is effective, States and LEAs should consider 

whether the LIEP is:

• Driven by data on the unique needs of ELs, including distinct subgroups of ELs as 

discussed in this guidance, and responsive to student performance data as part of 

continuous improvement;

• Aligned with local needs identified through timely and meaningful consultation with a 

broad range of stakeholders and examination of relevant data;

• Based on rigorous, relevant research16 on what instructional approaches are proven 

effective for promoting English language proficiency and high academic achievement 

(for more information on ways to improve student outcomes including using evidence, 

see the Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments Non-Regulatory Guidance 

available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf);

Accompanied by a robust plan for implementation that may include, for example, a logic 

model or theory of action; well-defined, measurable goals; clearly outlined roles and 

responsibilities for people involved; and implementation timelines;

• Examined through performance monitoring, and if appropriate, evaluation, in order to 

make changes to improve LIEP implementation and effectiveness; and

16 See, for example, the Institute for Educational Sciences Practice Guide “Teaching Academic Content and Literacy 

to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School,” available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=19.
20

• Included as part of a systemic approach to serving ELs, based on a State’s English 

language proficiency standards and its academic content standards.

As stated in A-3, under Title VI and the EEOA LEAs must provide a language assistance 

program that is effective—educationally sound and proven successful. For additional 

information about LEAs’ obligations in this area, see the DCL referenced in A-3. As stated in 

A-3 above, Title III funds may not be used to meet these civil rights requirements; such usage is 

prohibited by the supplement-not-supplant provision in Title III. Title III funds may, however, 

be used to supplement – that is, to increase the effectiveness of a language assistance program 

that already satisfies these civil rights obligations.

C-4. Are States or LEAs required to implement any particular type of LIEP?

No. Consistent with ESEA section 3124, the Department does not recommend any particular 

curricula, program of instruction, or instructional materials, nor does it prohibit any language 

instruction educational program used with ELs that is consistent with Title III of the ESEA and 

other laws, including Title VI and the EEOA. States and LEAs may select any LIEP that is 

effective, as indicated in C-3 above, and meets its Title VI and EEOA obligations, as indicated in 

A-3 and C-1 above. For more information on various types of LIEPs, see chapter 2 of the EL 

Toolkit available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learnertoolkit/eltoolkit.pdf.

Regardless of the LIEP that a State or LEA chooses to implement, States and LEAs may wish to 

incorporate methods of supporting home language development. Research on language use in 

early childhood programs and in elementary school, and on supporting home language 

development, including fostering bilingualism, maintaining cultural connections and 

communication with family members, and the transferability of home language skills to English 

language acquisition, suggests that systematic and deliberate exposure to English, paired with 

supporting home language development within high quality educational settings, can result in 

strong, positive outcomes for children who are non-native English speakers, as well as positive 

outcomes for native English speakers.17

C-5. Must a State conduct monitoring of its LEAs’ LIEPs to ensure that they are 

“effective”? What steps should a State take to assist an LEA if its LIEP is not effective?

The ESEA now requires that each State both monitor LEAs in implementing Title III and take 

steps “to further assist eligible entities if the strategies funded under this subpart are not 

effective, such as providing technical assistance and modifying such strategies.” (ESEA Section 

3113(b)(8)). In order to determine whether the LEA’s strategies are, in fact, effective, a State 

should establish and disseminate uniform, clear statewide guidelines or benchmarks for 

demonstrating effectiveness. For example, a State may choose to use the State-level indicator for 

progress in achieving English language proficiency established under Title I, Part A (ESEA

17 For research citations and additional information, see the Policy Statement on Supporting Children who are Dual 

Language Learners in Early Childhood Programs published by the Departments of Education and Health and 

Human Services, which provides background supporting the language development of young learners: 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/dll_policy_statement_final.pdf.
21

Section 1111(c)(4)(B)(iv)), and the progress current and former ELs are making in achieving 

proficiency on the academic content assessments, to determine whether or not an LEA’s LIEP is 

effective.

If multi-year student performance data (including data that are required to be reported under Title

III) demonstrate that ELs in a particular LEA are not making sufficient annual progress towards 

English language proficiency and gains in academic achievement, the State should work with the 

LEA to revise its LIEP and strategies for instructing ELs using evidence and research to guide its 

decision-making18.

As noted in A-3, Title VI and the EEOA independently require each State and LEA to evaluate 

the effectiveness of an LEA’s language assistance program to ensure that EL students acquire 

English proficiency and that language programs are reasonably calculated to allow EL students 

to attain parity of participation in the standard instructional program within a reasonable period 

of time. In reviewing LEA Title III plans, SEAs should ensure that LIEPs are effective and that 

they are being implemented consistent with a State’s uniform guidelines or benchmarks. (ESEA 

3116)

Under Title VI and the EEOA, meaningful program evaluations include longitudinal data on EL 

students, former EL students, and never-EL students.19

C-6. Must an LEA provide for the equitable participation of eligible private school 

students, their teachers and other educational personnel in Title III, Part A programs?

Yes. An LEA must provide for the equitable participation of eligible private school students, 

their teachers and other educational personnel in private schools located in areas served by the 

LEA. This requirement applies to both the EL and immigrant youth subgrants. An LEA must 

engage in timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials during the design and 

development of their Title III, Part A programs and prior to making any decision that may affect 

the participation of private school students, their teachers and/or other educational personnel in 

the program. (ESEA Sections 8501-8504).20

18See the Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments Non-Regulatory Guidance for more information 

about evidence-based decision-making, available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf)

19 “Never-EL” students are those who have never been identified as EL or never enrolled in an EL program. For

more information, see the DCL referenced in question A-3, section II.I, “Evaluating the Effectiveness of a District’s 

EL Program,” pp. 35-37. 20 New or changed requirements that affect the equitable participation of private school teachers and other 

educational personnel under the ESEA will be addressed in forthcoming guidance. Except as otherwise provided in 

that guidance, the existing non-regulatory Title IX, Part E Uniform Provisions, Subpart 1 – Private Schools (Revised 

March 2009) will remain applicable.
22

D- Educators of English Learners

D-1. What is the definition of “professional development” under the ESEA?

Under ESEA Section 8101(42) the term “professional development” means activities that—

(A) are an integral part of school and local educational agency strategies for providing 

educators (including teachers, principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support 

personnel, paraprofessionals, and, as applicable, early childhood educators) with the knowledge 

and skills necessary to enable students to succeed in a well-rounded education and to meet the 

challenging State academic standards; and

(B) are sustained (not stand-alone, 1-day, or short term workshops), intensive, 

collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven, and classroom-focused, and may include activities 

that--

(i) improve and increase teachers'—(I) knowledge of the academic subjects the 

teachers teach; (II) understanding of how students learn; and (III) ability to analyze 

student work and achievement from multiple sources, including how to adjust 

instructional strategies, assessments, and materials based on such analysis;

(ii) are an integral part of broad schoolwide and districtwide educational improvement 

plans;

(iii) allow personalized plans for each educator to address the educator's specific needs 

identified in observation or other feedback;

(iv) improve classroom management skills;

(v) support the recruitment, hiring, and training of effective teachers, including 

teachers who became certified through State and local alternative routes to 

certification;

(vi) advance teacher understanding of (I) effective instructional strategies that are 

evidence-based; and (II) strategies for improving student academic achievement or 

substantially increasing the knowledge and teaching skills of teachers;

(vii) are aligned with, and directly related to, academic goals of the school or local 

educational agency;

(viii) are developed with extensive participation of teachers, principals, other school 

leaders, parents, representatives of Indian tribes (as applicable), and administrators of 

schools to be served under this Act;

(ix) are designed to give teachers of English learners, and other teachers and 

instructional staff, the knowledge and skills to provide instruction and appropriate 

language and academic support services to those children, including the appropriate 

use of curricula and assessments;

(x) to the extent appropriate, provide training for teachers, principals, and other school 

leaders in the use of technology (including education about the harms of copyright 

piracy), so that technology and technology applications are effectively used in the
23

classroom to improve teaching and learning in the curricula and academic subjects in 

which the teachers teach;

(xi) as a whole, are regularly evaluated for their impact on increased teacher 

effectiveness and improved student academic achievement, with the findings of the 

evaluations used to improve the quality of professional development;

(xii) are designed to give teachers of children with disabilities or children with 

developmental delays, and other teachers and instructional staff, the knowledge and 

skills to provide instruction and academic support services, to those children, including 

positive behavioral interventions and supports, multi-tier system of supports, and use 

of accommodations;

(xiii) include instruction in the use of data and assessments to inform and instruct 

classroom practice;

(xiv) include instruction in ways that teachers, principals, other school leaders, 

specialized instructional support personnel, and school administrators may work more 

effectively with parents and families;

(xv) involve the forming of partnerships with institutions of higher education, 

including, as applicable, Tribal Colleges and Universities as defined in Section 316(b) 

of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)), to establish school-based 

teacher, principal, and other school leader training programs that provide prospective 

teachers, novice teachers, principals, and other school leaders with an opportunity to 

work under the guidance of experienced teachers, principals, other school leaders, and 

faculty of such institutions;

(xvi) create programs to enable paraprofessionals (assisting teachers employed by a 

local educational agency receiving assistance under part A of Title I) to obtain the 

education necessary for those paraprofessionals to become certified and licensed 

teachers;

(xvii) provide follow-up training to teachers who have participated in activities 

described in this paragraph that are designed to ensure that the knowledge and skills 

learned by the teachers are implemented in the classroom; and

(xviii) where practicable, provide jointly for school staff and other early childhood 

education program providers, to address the transition to elementary school, including 

issues related to school readiness.

D-2. What requirements pertain to pre-service and in-service professional development for 

teachers of ELs?

The ESSA makes several important changes pertaining to preparation and professional 

development for teachers of ELs. First, instead of describing these programs and activities as 

“high-quality,” as under NCLB, the statute has strengthened these provisions by clarifying that
24

such programs and activities supported by Title III funds must be “effective.” Specifically, the 

ESEA provides that: 21

• States may use State-level Title III funds to provide effective teacher and principal 

preparation, as well as for ongoing professional development activities that are effective, 

which may include helping educators meet State and local certification and licensing 

requirements for teaching English learners and improving their teaching skills to meet the 

diverse needs of English learners (including effective instruction) (ESEA Section 

3111(b)(2)(B)); and

• LEAs must use Title III funds to provide effective professional development forteachers 

and principals of ELs that is:

o Designed to improve the instruction and assessment of ELs;

o Designed to enhance the ability of teachers and principals to understand and 

implement curricula, assessment measures and practices, and instructional 

strategies for ELs;

o Effective in increasing children’s English language proficiency or substantially 

increasing the subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge, and teaching skills 

of teachers of ELs; and

o Of sufficient intensity and duration to have a positive and lasting impact on the 

teachers’ performance in the classroom. This does not include one-day orshortterm events, unless as part of a teacher’s comprehensive professional 

development plan that is based on a needs assessment.

(ESEA Section 3115(c)(2)).

Second, the use of Title III State-level funds for professional development was previously 

limited to assisting personnel in meeting certification and licensing requirements for teaching 

ELs; States may now also provide professional development to improve teaching skills to meet 

the diverse needs of ELs, including how to implement effective programs and curricula to teach 

ELs. (ESEA Section 3111(b)(2)(B)). The professional development provided by either the State 

or an LEA need not be limited to teachers who teach exclusively ELs, but may be provided to all 

teachers who have ELs in their classrooms, to enable them to teach those ELs more effectively. 

School districts also have an obligation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 

EEOA to provide the personnel and resources necessary to effectively implement their chosen 

language assistance program.22 The supplement-not-supplant provision in Title III prohibits the 

use of Title III funds to meet these civil rights requirements, but Title III funds may be used to 

supplement professional development by a school district that is already meeting its civil rights 

obligations.

21 Emphasis added in each bullet that follows.

22 See the DCL referenced in question A-3, section II.C, “Staffing and Supporting EL Programs,” pp. 14-17.
25

D-3. What legal obligations apply to States and LEAs pertaining to the qualifications of 

teachers and other staff who teach ELs?

The ESEA does not dictate specific qualifications for teachers of ELs; this is a matter that is 

determined by States. However, it is crucial to the success of ELs that teachers are trained on 

how to support both ELs’ English language development and their mastery of academic content 

knowledge. As noted in question D-2, Title VI and the EEOA require LEAs to provide the 

personnel and resources necessary to effectively implement their chosen language assistance 

program. More information about these Title VI and EEOA requirements can be found in the 

DCL referenced in question A-3 above. See question K-4 for further discussion of requirements 

for personnel serving English learners with disabilities.

D-4. What criteria should a State and its LEAs receiving Title III funds use to ensure that 

teachers and school leaders of ELs are well-prepared, including through the provision of 

effective preparation and professional development?

Preparation and professional development programs and activities for teachers and school 

leaders of ELs must meet the statutory requirements described in question D-2 above. ((ESEA 

Section 3115(c)(2)).

Access to effective educators is critical for supporting ELs; research has shown that teacher 

effectiveness is strongly correlated with student success.23 In order to promote positive 

educational outcomes for ELs, preparation and professional development for teachers of ELs and 

school leaders should improve instruction, increase teachers’ and school leaders’ ability to 

implement effective curricula for ELs, increase students’ English language proficiency and 

improve students’ academic achievement. Preparation and professional development programs 

for teachers of ELs should be based on the highest available level of evidence and should be 

measured to determine their effectiveness. (See the Department’s Using Evidence to Strengthen 

Education Investments Non-Regulatory Guidance available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf)). When measuring the 

effectiveness of the professional development activities, States and LEAs should assess not only 

teacher competencies and skills, but also performance data and measurements of student 

outcomes.24

23 See, for example, Jacob, Brian A. and Lars Lefgren, 2008. “Can Principals Identify Effective Teachers? 

Evidence on Subjective Performance Evaluation in Education.” Journal of Labor Economics 26, no. 1 (January): 

101-136; Kane, Thomas J., and Douglas O. Staiger. 2008. "Estimating Teacher Impacts on Student Achievement: 

An Experimental Evaluation." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 14607; Koedel, Cory, and 

Julian Betts. 2009. "Does Student Sorting Invalidate Value-Added Models of Teacher Effectiveness? An Extended 

Analysis of the Rothstein Critique." University of Missouri Department of Economics Working Paper 0902; 

Rothstein, Jesse. 2010. "Teacher Quality in Educational Production: Tracking, Decay, and Student Achievement." 

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1): 175-214.; Hanushek, Eric A., and Steven G. Rivkin. 2010. "Constrained 

Job Matching: Does Teacher Job Search Harm Disadvantaged Urban Schools?" National Bureau of Economic 

Research Working Paper 15816.

24 Title VI and the EEOA also require States and school districts that provide training to teachers of ELs to evaluate 

whether the training adequately prepares teachers to implement the language assistance program effectively. See the 

DCL referenced in #A-3, section II.C, “Staffing and Supporting EL Programs,” pp. 14-17.
26

Further, the Department encourages States and LEAs to use State and local funds to conduct 

preparation and professional development activities that will lead to participating teachers and 

principals meeting relevant State or local certification and licensing requirements for educators 

of ELs.

D-5. How may a State or LEA monitor preparation and professional development 

programs and activities for teachers and school leaders of ELs to ensure that they are 

effective?

In order to facilitate successful implementation at the local and school levels, a State or LEA 

should establish and disseminate uniform Statewide or districtwide criteria that can be used to 

ensure that all preparation and professional development activities meet the statutory 

requirements under the ESEA and demonstrate effectiveness with regards to language 

development and academic outcomes for ELs (see D-1). More information on increasing the 

effectiveness of preparation and professional development is available in the 2016 Title II, Part 

A guidance.

D-6. Which teachers and principals are eligible to receive or participate in professional 

development and preparation funded under Title III?

If a State or LEA receives Title III funds, it may use these funds to provide preparation and 

professional development opportunities to all teachers of ELs and all leaders of schools in which 

ELs are enrolled. Thus, an LEA may provide training not only to those who exclusively teach 

ELs, but to teachers who may only have a few ELs in their classrooms. Regardless of the 

specific participants, such activities must be effective and fully meet the requirements of Section 

3115(c)(2) of the ESEA. Title III funds may also be used to provide professional development 

for other educators who work with ELs to include paraprofessionals, counselors, and special 

education teachers.

D-7. How may a State or LEA use Title III funds for staffing purposes, consistent with the 

supplement-not-supplant requirement in Title III?

As discussed in question A-3, Title III funds must be used for supplemental purposes and a State 

and LEA may not use Title III funds to meet obligations to ELs under Title VI and the EEOA. 

However, Title III funds may be used to provide supplemental staff to support ELs, as long as a 

State or LEA has already met its civil rights obligations, including the Castañeda standards.25

For example, an LEA may use Title III funds to hire a specialist on EL students with interrupted 

formal education or English learners with disabilities to provide supplemental support to these 

unique populations; an LEA could also use Title III funds to hire staff that would provide 

supplemental LEA-wide instructional support to teachers of ELs. As another example, an LEA 

could assign an EL teacher to spend 50% of her time providing language instructional services to 

ELs, with 50% of her salary funded from State and local funds, and 50% of her time providing 

supplemental EL services, funded from Title III. Note, however, that determinations about the 

supplement-not-supplant requirement in Title III are always fact-specific.

25 For more information on the Castañeda standards, please see page 6 of the DCL referenced in question A-3 and 

pages 14-17 for more information on staffing requirements under the Castañeda standards.
27

E- Parent, Family, & Community Engagement

E-1. What are the requirements in the ESEA for parent,26 family, and community 

engagement with regard to ELs?

First, Title I now requires that each LEA that receives a Title I subgrant implement an effective 

means of outreach to parents of ELs. The outreach must include holding, and sending notice of 

opportunities for, regular meetings in order to gather and respond to recommendations from 

parents. (ESEA Section 1112(e)(3)(C)).

Second, an LEA receiving a Title III formula subgrant must conduct parent, family, and 

community engagement, in addition to the required uses of funds for supplementing LIEPs for 

ELs and providing professional development to teachers and school leaders. (ESEA Section 

3115(c)(3)).

Third, the ESSA expanded allowable uses of Title III State-level activity funds to include 

providing technical assistance to LEAs to strengthen and increase not only parent and 

community engagement in programs that serve ELs, but also family engagement in such 

programs. (ESEA Section 3111(b)(2)(D)(iv)).

Fourth, a State must ensure that its Title III State plan, or a consolidated State plan that includes 

Title III funds, has been developed in consultation with parents of ELs, in addition to LEAs, 

teachers, administrators of Title III programs and other relevant stakeholders. (ESEA Section 

3113(b)(3)(G)).

It is important to note that all LEAs have language assistance obligations to LEP parents under 

Title VI and the EEOA. LEAs must ensure meaningful communication with LEP parents in a 

language they can understand and adequately notify LEP parents of information about any 

program, service, or activity of an LEA or State that is called to the attention of non-LEP 

parents.27 As part of this obligation, an LEA must provide language assistance to LEP parents 

effectively with appropriate, competent staff or appropriate and competent outside resources. In 

addition, each LEA must develop and implement a process for determining whether parents are 

LEP and what their language needs are. An LEA may not use Title III funds to meet its 

obligations under Title VI and the EEOA. Title III funds may be used to supplement an LEA’s 

activities if the LEA is already meeting its obligation to ensure meaningful communication with 

LEP parents in a language they can understand.

E-2. For purposes of outreach to families of ELs, how are “families” defined in the ESEA?

The ESEA does not define the term “families.” Families may include relatives involved in the 

social, emotional, and academic support of the student and expand beyond parents and guardians 

to include siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and others. As such, States, LEAs, and 

schools looking to involve and support families should be responsive to their students’ diverse 

family structures. For an EL or immigrant student, extended family members may have a

26 The ESEA definition of “parent” in section 8101(38) includes parents, legal guardians, and other individuals who 

are standing in loco parentis, such as a grandparent or stepparent with whom the child lives, or a person who is 

legally responsible for the child’s welfare.

27 Please see Section II.J., “Ensuring Meaningful Communication with Limited English Proficient Parents,” in the 

Dear Colleague Letter referenced in question A-3.
28

powerful impact on the student’s academic success. In many cultures, grandparents in particular 

play a pivotal role in guiding and shaping household values. Providing outreach to those 

relatives, including through information about school programs and student progress, as well as 

opportunities for meaningful involvement, such as participation in school functions like family 

literacy nights and other such events, can have a positive impact on student learning. It is also 

important to consider the family situation of foster youth, unaccompanied children, and others 

whose “family” network may extend beyond biological relatives.

E-3. For purposes of outreach to an EL student’s community, how is “community” defined 

in the ESEA?

The ESEA does not define the term “community.” A community may include the local and 

extended network of organizations that exist to support the student and his or her family. These 

communities can include private, non-profit, for-profit, or faith-based organizations. A school 

and LEA should make an effort to familiarize themselves with the various community 

organizations that support the students and families in their area. Knowing the churches, 

synagogues, mosques or other faith-based communities to which families belong can provide 

avenues for communicating about school events, including important dates, like back to school 

night or kindergarten enrollment. Non-profit organizations such as cultural centers, heritage 

language schools and mutual assistance associations in the local community often provide 

valuable educational services outside of school hours, such as tutoring and mentoring. Sharing 

information about students’ needs and progress, with parental consent, can align those 

organizations’ efforts with the school’s efforts and magnify the positive impact.

E-4. What parent and family engagement activities may be conducted using Title III 

funds?

A State may use its State-level activity funds to strengthen and increase parent, family, and 

community engagement in programs that serve ELs. (ESEA Section 3111(b)(2)(D)(iv)). An 

LEA, in addition to using funds for each of the parent, family, and community engagement 

activities described in question E-1 above, may also use its subgrant—

o To coordinate and align related programs for ELs, which may include programs 

for parents and families of ELs. (ESEA Section 3115(c)(3)).

o To provide community participation programs, family literacy services, and 

parent and family outreach and training activities, which may include English as a 

Second Language courses for parents and families of ELs in order to assist 

parents and families in helping their children to improve their academic 

achievement, and to help parents and families to become active participants in the 

education of their children. (ESEA Section 3115(d)(6)).

• An LEA receiving Title III immigrant subgrant funds under ESEA Section 3114(d)(1) 

may use those funds—

o For family literacy, parent and family outreach, and training activities designed to 

assist parents and families to become active participants in the education of their 

children; and
29

o To provide activities, in coordination with community-based organizations, 

institutions of higher education, private sector entities, or other entities with 

expertise in working with immigrants, to assist parents and families ofimmigrant 

children and youth by offering comprehensive community services. (ESEA 

Section 3115(e)(1)(A), (G)).

For all of these activities, an LEA may not use Title III funds to meet its obligations under Title 

VI and the EEOA, as described in question E-1. Title III funds may be used to supplement an 

LEA’s activities if the LEA is already meeting its obligation to ensure meaningful 

communication with LEP parents in a language they can understand.

E-5. What notifications must an LEA provide to parents of ELs under the ESEA?

Title I requires that every LEA that uses funds under either Title I or Title III for services to ELs 

must provide a parent with notification that outlines their child’s identification as an EL and 

placement in an LIEP. (ESEA Section 1112(e)(3)).

The parental notification must include:

 The reason for identification of the child as an EL;

• The child’s level of English language proficiency, how the level was assessed, and the 

status of the child’s academic achievement;

 Methods of instruction used in the program in which the child is, or will be, participating, 

and the methods of instruction used in other available programs, including how the 

programs differ;

 How the program will meet the educational strengths and needs of the child and help the 

child achieve English language proficiency, and meet academic standards;

 Exit requirements for the program, expected rate of transition to a classroom not tailored 

for EL students, and expected rate of high school graduation;

• In the case of a child with a disability, how the program meets the annual goals in the 

child’s individualized education program (IEP); and

• Information regarding parents’ right to withdraw the child from a program upon their 

request, and to decline enrollment or choose another program or method of instruction, if 

available.

(ESEA 1112(e)(3)(A)).

The notification must be provided no later than 30 calendar days after the beginning of the 

school year or within the first two weeks of placement in an LIEP for students who enroll after 

the start of the school year. (ESEA Section 1112(e)(3)(A), 1112(e)(3)(B)).
30

The notice and information provided must be in an understandable and uniform format and, to 

the extent practicable, provided in a language that the parents can understand.28 (ESEA Section 

1112(e)(4)).

E-6. May the parent of a child who is identified as an EL decline to enroll in, or have the 

student removed from, the LIEP?

Yes. As explained in question E-5, each LEA must provide written notification to parents of ELs 

of, among other things, information pertaining to the right of parents to have their child removed 

from the LIEP or to decline to enroll in such program. (ESEA 1112(e)(3)(A)(viii)).29 Under 

Title VI and the EEOA, a parent’s decision to opt out of a program for ELs must be knowing and 

voluntary, and an LEA may not recommend that parents decline all or some services within a 

program for ELs for any reason.30

Note, however, that if an EL is not participating in the LIEP, the LEA still has the obligation 

under Title VI and EEOA to take “affirmative steps” and “appropriate action” to provide the 

student with access to its educational programs. The English language and other academic needs 

of such an EL student must still be met.31

In addition, the ESEA requires that the LEA still must assess all ELs using the annual English 

language proficiency assessment, including those students whose parents have declined to enroll 

them in, or had them removed from, LIEPs. All ELs enrolled in schools served by the State must 

be assessed annually using the State’s English language proficiency assessment. (ESEA Section 

1111(b)(2)(G), emphasis added). State or district assessment policies, if they include a right to 

opt a child out of assessments, do not override or diminish the LEA’s obligation to assess 100 

percent of ELs using the annual English language proficiency assessment.

E-7. What resources does the Department provide to support parent, family, and 

community engagement?

The Department has numerous resources available to support States and LEAs in conducting 

meaningful parent, family, and community engagement. These resources include:

 The Dual Capacity Building Framework, which focuses on building the capacity of 

educators and families to work collaboratively to support positive outcomes for all 

students;

 Chapter 10 of the EL Tool Kit, which provides tools and resources to ensure meaningful 

communication with LEP parents;

 The Resource Guide: Supporting Undocumented Youth, which is designed to help 

secondary schools, institutions of higher education, teachers, and other personnelsupport

28 While the ESEA expressly includes certain protections for LEP parents, the ESEA does not override an LEA’s 

independent obligations under Title VI and the EEOA, which requires LEAs to ensure meaningful communication 

with LEP parents in a language they can understand. For additional information, see question E-14.

29 Parents also have a right under Title VI and the EEOA to decline or opt their children out of an LEA’s program 

for ELs or out of particular language services within a program for ELs.

30 For additional information about LEAs’ Title VI and EEOA obligations to EL students, including EL students 

who opt out of an LEA’s program for ELs, see the DCL referenced in question A-3, section II.G, “Meeting the 

Needs of EL Students Who Opt Out of EL Programs or Particular EL Services,” pp. 29-32. 31 For more information, see the DCL referenced in question A-3, section II.G, pp. 29-32.
31

the college and career success of undocumented youth in secondary and postsecondary 

settings;

 The White House Task Force for New Americans Webinar Series, which focused on the 

educational and linguistic integration of immigrants and refugees, including engaging 

with immigrant parents and families; and

• The Newcomer Tool Kit, which provides educators and others who work directly with 

immigrant students—including asylees and refugees—and their families with tools, 

strategies, and examples of effective classroom and schoolwide practices.

F- Early Learning

F-1. How are early learning programs included in Title III?

While Title III funds could also be used to serve ELs as young as age 3 under the ESEA prior to 

the ESSA amendments, the ESSA amendments further promote the inclusion of ELs in early 

learning programs as part of Title III. The relevant statutory provisions are highlighted below:32

 ESEA Section 3102, which outlines the purposes of Title III, now explicitly includes 

preschool teachers.

o One of the purposes of Title III is to assist teachers (including preschool 

teachers), principals and other school leaders, State educational agencies, local 

educational agencies, and schools in establishing, implementing and sustaining 

effective language instruction educational programs designed to assist in teaching 

English learners, including immigrant children and youth.

o Another purpose of Title III is to assist teachers (including preschool teachers), 

principals and other school leaders, State educational agencies, and local 

educational agencies to develop and enhance their capacity to provide effective 

instructional programs designed to prepare English learners, including immigrant 

children and youth, to enter all-English instructional settings.

 ESEA Section 3115, which outlines provisions related to the Title III EL formula 

subgrants, now refers to early childhood education programs as part of the stated 

purposes of subgrants and in the authorized uses of funds.

o One of the purposes of Title III EL formula subgrants is developing and 

implementing new language instruction educational programs and academic 

content instructional programs for English learners and immigrant children and 

youth, including early childhood education programs, elementary school 

programs, and secondary school programs.

o LEAs receiving Title III EL formula subgrants may use funds to develop and 

implement effective preschool, elementary school, or secondary school language 

instruction educational programs that are coordinated with other relevant 

programs and services.

32 Emphasis added in the following bullets.
32

 ESEA Section 3116, which contains the requirements for local plans for the Title III EL 

subgrants, includes a new assurance pertaining to early learning programs, if applicable.

o LEAs must assure that they will, if applicable, coordinate activities and share 

relevant data under the plan with local Head Start and Early Head Start agencies, 

including migrant and seasonal Head Start agencies, and other early childhood 

education providers.

F-2. May a State or LEA include preschool teachers in pre-service and in-service 

professional development activities provided using Title III funds?

Yes. Title III funds may be used to provide professional development for teachers of ELs in 

publicly funded preschool programs to help ensure that preschool teachers are well prepared to 

meet the unique needs of ELs in those preschool programs.33 We encourage States and LEAs to 

include preschool teachers in professional development. Early learning programs, including 

preschools, can set ELs on a strong path to long-term school success; professional development 

to strengthen the knowledge and skills of preschool teachers working with ELs may help 

facilitate these positive outcomes on a broader scale.

F-3. How may an LEA provide language instruction in a preschool program for ELs, 

consistent with Title III requirements?

An LEA receiving a Title III subgrant may use a portion of those funds to provide effective 

preschool LIEPs that are coordinated with other relevant programs and services by providing 

supplemental language instruction for ELs in public preschool programs. In doing so, an LEA 

may braid Title III subgrant funds with other funding streams available to provide effective 

preschool language instruction for ELs. As with any use of the funds under Title III, an LEA 

must comply with the statutory supplement-not-supplant provision under ESEA Section 3115 

(See questions A-2 and A-3.) An LEA should prioritize funds for high-quality and effective 

preschool programs when utilizing Title III funds to support language instruction for ELs in 

preschool, as these programs may be more likely to produce positive outcomes like improved 

school readiness and language development. For more information on high-quality early 

learning programs, please see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance on early learning 

opportunities under the ESEA, available at (link to be added once the early learning guidance 

has been published). For more information on supplement-not-supplant obligations, see Section 

A of this document.

F-4. What are some examples of how an LEA may use Title III funds in preschool 

programs?

A district may use Title III funds for language instruction educational services in an existing 

preschool program that the district operates or funds, as long as the use of funds is 

supplementary and the funds are prorated proportionally to the number of ELs in the program.

 For example, District A operates a preschool program for four-year-olds that is currently 

funded with State and local funds, and half the students are ELs. The LEA plans to start

33 With regard to private and community-based preschools, see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance on early 

learning, available at: (link to be added once the early learning guidance has been published)).
33

implementing, in this existing program, a new optional dual-language preschool model 

that has a record of effectiveness. It wishes to use Title III funds for EL-related 

professional development for the preschool teachers (which meets the four requirements 

of ESEA Section 3115(c)(2) for professional development) and to purchase bilingual 

learning materials. Assuming that the professional development and the bilingual 

materials have not previously been provided from different funding sources, and that all 

of the teachers interact with all of the students, the LEA may use Title III funds for these 

purposes; however, those funds can be used for only half the per-pupil cost of the 

learning materials, because half the students are not ELs.

 As another example, District B currently operates a preschool program forfour-year-olds 

that is currently funded with State and local funds, and one-third of the students are ELs. 

Two of the teachers have received training in teaching ELs, and the district wishes to use 

Title III funds to pay the salaries of those trained preschool teachers, and also to start 

conducting weekly family learning nights for the entire preschool population. The LEA 

may not use Title III funds for the teacher salaries; that would raise a rebuttable 

presumption of supplanting because those salaries were previously paid from State and 

local funds (see #A-2 above for more information). The LEA could use Title III funds 

for one-third of the total cost of the family nights, because one-third of the students are 

ELs.

The same considerations apply if a district starts a new preschool program. In addition, in either 

situation, although districts have the flexibility to use the Title III funds in the grade levels or 

schools that it chooses, the district must ensure that it also meets the three required uses of funds 

in ESEA Section 3115(c) (i.e., to supplement LIEPs, to provide effective professional 

development, and to provide other activities that must include parent, family, and community 

engagement).

F-5. What considerations should an LEA take into account before using Title III funds to 

support ELs in preschool?

An LEA that uses Title III subgrant funds to support preschool-aged ELs should ensure that its 

language instruction and other services are developmentally appropriate for young ELs, 

culturally responsive, reflective of the latest research on effective instruction for ELs in early 

learning programs, and supportive of all ELs’ needs. An LEA should consider the 

developmental and language needs of children when determining which students may be served 

using Title III funds.

Like LIEPS in elementary and secondary schools, LIEPs provided in preschool for ELs must 

also be “effective,” and should be expected to demonstrate improved learning outcomes for ELs. 

(ESEA Section 3115(a), (c)). For more information, please see question C-3.

For more information on promising practices to support ELs from birth through age 5, please see 

the Joint U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ 

“Policy Statement on Supporting the Development of Children who are Dual Language Learners 

in Early Childhood Programs,” available at 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/dll_policy_statement_final.pdf.
34

F-6. What data should LEAs share and what activities should LEAs coordinate with Head 

Start agencies (including Early Head Start and migrant and seasonal Head Start agencies) 

and other early childhood education providers?

The alignment of standards, curricula, instruction, and assessment systems for students from 

birth to age 8 may benefit children in early learning programs and elementary schools, including 

ELs, as it facilitates greater continuity and better organization of supports for students. This 

alignment may also help to make expectations more consistent between programs and foster 

greater collaboration between early learning programs and elementary schools.

The requirement that, as part of the local plan, LEAs that receive Title III subgrant funds must

coordinate activities and share data with early childhood programs (ESEA Section 3116) should 

help lead to improved alignment across the early educational years and improved outcomes for 

ELs. Effective implementation of this new provision will lead to better coordination between 

Head Start, other early childhood programs, and schools served by the LEA, while facilitating a 

strong transition for ELs into elementary and secondary education. LEAs may hold joint 

professional development for elementary educators and preschool teachers of ELs, including 

those in Head Start and other early childhood community-based settings, coordinate data 

reporting and sharing, align standards and curricula, and conduct transition activities for children 

and families, as part of the activities coordinated with early childhood programs.

In determining which data would be most appropriate to share with early learning programs, 

including Head Start agencies, we encourage LEAs to consult with and solicit feedback from 

early learning programs in the community. We also encourage LEAs to consider which 

indicators would be most beneficial to create a feedback loop that informs the improvement of 

programs and supports for ELs, and then to consider which data could most accurately be used to 

measure progress against such indicators. For example, collecting and analyzing kindergarten 

entry assessment data, data from the annual English language proficiency assessment given in 

kindergarten or first grade, and elementary school academic achievement data could help to 

identify strengths of early learning programs in preparing ELs for academic success and areasfor 

improvement. In considering whether to share or exchange student data, LEAs must comply 

with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA); for further information on those 

requirements, contact the Department’s Family Policy Compliance Office or see 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/index.html.

G-Immigrant Subgrant and Serving Immigrant Students

G-1. How is an “immigrant child or youth” defined under Title III of the ESEA?

The term “immigrant children and youth,” which is defined in Section 3201(5) of the ESEA, 

refers to individuals who: (A) are aged 3 through 21; (B) were not born in any State; and (C) 

have not been attending one or more schools in any one or more States for more than 3 full 

academic years. Note that “State” is defined in Section 3201(13) of the ESEA to include the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Therefore, students born in Puerto Rico may 

not be included as “immigrant” students under Title III.

Finally, note that the term “immigrant” as used in Title III is not related to an individual's legal 

status in the United States. Under the U.S. Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, schools are
35

required to provide equal access to a basic public education to all students, regardless of 

immigration status. For more information see OCR’s Guidance for School Districts to Ensure 

Equal Access for All Children to Public Schools Regardless of Immigration Status, available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/raceorigin.html.

G-2. How must a State allocate funds reserved under ESEA Section 3114(d) – the required 

reservation for immigrant children and youth (immigrant subgrant)? How might a State 

allocate immigrant subgrant funds in a manner that increases the potential impact of these 

funds?

A State must reserve at least enough funds to make one subgrant to an eligible LEA to serve 

immigrant students that is of sufficient size and scope to carry out a program that is effective in 

meeting the purposes of Title III. (ESEA Section 3114(d)). Each State must award these funds 

to one or more LEAs that have experienced a significant increase in the percentage or number of 

immigrant children and youth, as compared to the two preceding fiscal years. (ESEA Section 

3114(d)(1)). While a State may choose whether to use an increase in the percentage or number 

of immigrant children and youth in awarding funds to LEAs, we encourage States to consider 

both increases in the percentage and in the number of immigrant children and youth in order to 

ensure an equitable allocation of funds across LEAs of various sizes. A State may define the 

“significant increase” criteria used to determine eligibility of LEAs for this subgrant (see 

question A-16). If a State’s definition is not sufficient to allow at least one LEA to meet

the definition and permit at least one immigrant subgrant to be made, the State may change its 

definition. Defining “significant increase” may provide a State the opportunity to award an 

immigrant subgrant to an LEA that, while it has experienced a significant increase in immigrant 

students, still does not have enough EL students to qualify for the minimum formula subgrant 

award of $10,000. (ESEA Section 3114(b)).

In order to ensure that immigrant subgrant awards are used for meaningful activities that improve 

outcomes for immigrant children and youth, we encourage States to provide awards of an 

adequate size (i.e., making fewer, larger awards) so that each LEA can use these funds for a

high-quality program. In awarding these subgrants, a State must equally consider LEAs that 

have limited or no experience in serving immigrant children and youth. States must also 

consider the quality of the local plans that the LEAs submit under Section 3116. (ESEA Section 

3114(d)). In order to make at least one immigrant subgrant, a State has discretion with respect 

to:

1. The size and scope of the award;

2. Whether to make such awards on a discretionary or formula basis;

3. Whether to make awards multi-year or for a single year; and

4. The definition of “significant increase.”

G-3. How must a State determine whether an LEA has had a “significant increase” in 

immigrant children and youth?

The ESEA prior to the ESSA amendments required a State to consider the preceding fiscal year’s 

data as compared to the average of the two fiscal years preceding that year. The ESEA as
36

amended by the ESSA requires a State to consider the current fiscal year’s data as compared to 

the average of the two preceding fiscal years. For more information, please see question A-16.

G-4. How must an LEA use Title III immigrant subgrant funds? How might an LEA 

prioritize certain uses of funds to respond to the unique needs of the immigrant children 

and youth that it serves?

Under the statute, an LEA must use the immigrant subgrant to provide enhanced instructional 

opportunities for immigrant children and youth (ESEA Section 3115(e)). Activities may include 

(with ESSA changes emphasized):

 Family literacy, parent and family outreach, and training activities designed to assist 

parents and families to become active participants in the education of their children;

 Recruitment of and support for personnel, including teachers and paraprofessionals who 

have been specifically trained, or are being trained, to provide services to immigrant 

children and youth;

 Provision of tutorials, mentoring, and academic or career counseling for immigrant 

children and youth;

 Identification, development, and acquisition of curricular materials, educationalsoftware, 

and technologies to be used in the program;

 Basic instruction services that are directly attributable to the presence of immigrant 

children and youth in the LEA, including the payment of costs of providing additional 

classroom supplies, costs of transportation, or such other costs as are directly attributable 

to such additional basic instruction services;

 Other instruction services that are designed to assist immigrant children and youth to 

achieve in elementary and secondary schools in the U.S., such as programs of 

introduction to the educational system and civics education; and

 Activities, coordinated with community-based organizations, institutions of higher 

education, private sector entities, or other entities with expertise in working with 

immigrants, to assist parents and families of immigrant children and youth by offering 

comprehensive community services.

We strongly encourage an LEA that receives Title III immigrant subgrant funds to prioritize 

activities that will meet the unique needs of the immigrant children and youth enrolled in the 

LEA, as well as parents and families of these students. Conducting a needs assessment and 

measuring the impact of activities provided using Title III funds may help to ensure that these 

funds are used meaningfully and that LEAs are able to successfully support immigrant children

and youth.

G-5. What additional resources are provided by the Department to help LEAs and schools 

support immigrant children and youth?

The Department, as part of the White House Task Force on New Americans, has developed a 

number of resources for States, LEAs, and schools to support immigrant children and youth. For 

the totality of resources, please visit the Department’s immigration webpage available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/immigration-resources.html. Among other resources,
37

the Department’s Newcomer Tool Kit is designed to help schools support immigrants, refugees, 

and their families with a successful integration process; the Tool Kit is available at 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/new-comer-toolit/ncomertoolkit.pdf.

H- Reporting and Data Collection

H-1. Does Title III have additional reporting requirements for LEAs to report to States on 

ELs, beyond what is required to be reported under the Title I State and LEA report cards?

Yes. Title I requires that States and LEAs annually report on ELs’ progress in achieving English 

language proficiency, attainment of English language proficiency, academic achievement, and 

high school graduation rates. (ESEA Section 1111(h)(1), (h)(2)). Under Title III, there are 

additional reporting requirements. LEAs must report to their States on34:

- Title III programs and activities

- Number and percentage of ELs making progress toward English language proficiency

- Number and percentage of ELs who attain proficiency and exit LIEPs

- Number and percentage of former ELs who meet academic content standards (for 4 

years)

- Number and percentage of ELs who have not exited LIEPs after 5 years as an EL

- Any other information required by the SEA.

H-2. For which reporting elements is an LEA required to disaggregate EL data by the 

number and percentage of English learners with disabilities?

Under ESEA Section 3121, an LEA must disaggregate by English learners with disabilities in 

reporting the number and percentage of ELs making progress toward English language 

proficiency, and in reporting the number and percentage of former ELs meeting State academic 

standards for each of the four years after they no longer receive Title III services. Thus, for each 

of those two data elements, an LEA will report in the aggregate (all ELs, including English 

learners with disabilities) and report separately on English learners with disabilities.

H-3. Should LEAs disaggregate their EL data by English learners with disabilities on any 

additional measures, besides the two required under Title III?

We encourage LEAs to consider disaggregating, by English learners with disabilities, additional 

measures that are required under Title III to be reported to States, including attainment of 

English language proficiency and the number and percentage of ELs who have not attained 

proficiency within five years of initial classification as an EL. (See ESEA Section 3121).

H-4. Should LEAs consider disaggregating data reported under Title III by any other 

subgroups of ELs, besides English learners with disabilities? If so, for what purposes?

A State should consider requiring reporting of Title III data disaggregated by other subgroups of 

ELs. LEAs should also analyze disaggregated EL performance data by other subgroups of ELs, 

including long-term ELs, recently arrived ELs, and EL students with interrupted formal

34 These are general summaries of the reporting requirements; for specific requirements see ESEA section 3121.
38

education (SIFE), as defined by the State. As stated above, more detailed data will enable LEAs 

to better tailor services funded under Title III to meet the unique needs of ELs and to identify and 

appropriately respond to gaps in achievement between different groups of ELs and when 

compared to non-EL peers.

Disaggregating student performance data may provide valuable information on how different 

subgroups of ELs are performing. These data can inform program improvement and help LEAs 

and States address gaps in achievement between EL subgroups. ELs are a highly diverse student 

population; disaggregated data can provide a more detailed picture of performance variation 

among different subgroups of ELs including, but not limited to, English learners with disabilities.

In addition to disaggregating for distinct populations of ELs, LEAs should analyze disaggregated 

data by type of LIEP. Performance data by program type may help LEAs to determine which 

LIEPs are meeting the Title III requirement to be effective in improving English language 

proficiency and academic achievement for ELs who participate in such programs. These 

disaggregated data may help an LEA to take appropriate steps to avoid civil rights violations 

under Title VI and the EEOA and modify its LIEPs if, for example, a particular program type or 

model is not generating improved outcomes for ELs.

I-Long-term English Learners

I-1. How is a long-term EL defined by the ESEA?

The ESEA does not define “long-term English learner.” However, the reporting requirement 

under ESEA Section 3121(a)(6) may be instructive in determining which ELs served under Title 

III are long-term ELs. Specifically, this provision requires LEAs receiving Title III subgrants to 

biannually report the number and percentage of ELs who have not yet attained English language 

proficiency within five years of initial classification as an EL and first enrollment in the LEA. 

Thus, beyond the specific reporting requirement in ESEA Section 3121(a)(6), States and LEAs 

may consider ELs who have not attained English language proficiency after five years as longterm ELs. Long-term ELs who remain in EL status for prolonged periods of time may face 

significant barriers to attaining English language proficiency and graduating college- and careerready. Thus, many SEAs and LEAs have focused recent efforts on decreasing the number of 

long-term ELs in schools and on providing additional supports to these students. These students 

may require additional supports in order to achieve English language proficiency.

I-2. Which long-term ELs must be included as part of the reporting requirement under 

ESEA Section 3121(a)(6)?

ESEA Section 3121(a)(6) requires that an LEA annually report the number and percentage of 

ELs who have not attained English language proficiency within five years of initial classification 

as an EL and first enrollment in the LEA. Therefore, an LEA must include in this measure all 

ELs enrolled in schools in the LEA who have not attained English language proficiency (based 

on the annual English language proficiency assessment) within five years of initial classification 

as an EL and first enrollment in the LEA.

If an EL moves into another LEA, the “new” LEA should still include that student in reporting 

on this measure if he or she has not attained English language proficiency within five years of
39

initial classification in the student’s original LEA. Including those long-term ELs who have not 

been enrolled in the same LEA for the entire period of their schooling is critical for ensuring that 

no child falls through the cracks and is unable to attain English language proficiency despite 

receiving EL services for many years. A State should take steps to ensure prompt and complete 

data-sharing among LEAs, which helps not only for this reporting requirement, but also for 

instructional and student support purposes.

I-3. How might an LEA and SEA use the data on ELs who have not yet attained English 

language proficiency within five years of initial classification as an EL and first enrollment 

in the LEA to improve its programs for ELs?

Long-term ELs may need unique supports to address both academic and non-academic factors, 

such as social emotional skills development, that may impact the time it takes them to attain 

English language proficiency. Positive emotional well-being correlates with higher rates of 

academic engagement, a sense of belonging and connectedness in school. LEAs and States can 

actively support skill development by creating safe learning environments where it is safe to 

express emotions and providing strategies for critical problem solving with emphasis on 

communication and relational skills. Academic factors may also impact the time it takes them to 

attain English language proficiency. For example, long-term ELs may have not received the 

high-quality English language development services they need to learn academic English, and 

may not have access to English language materials and supports outside of school, such as 

assistance with homework in English. In order to support these students, we encourage LEAs 

and States to use these data to determine whether any modifications to LIEPs are necessary and 

whether additional targeted services, which have been shown to be effective in increasing 

English language proficiency, may be needed to help long-term ELs.

J-Former English Learners

J-1. Which ELs must be included as part of the reporting requirement regarding former 

ELs under ESEA section 3121(a)(5)?

ESEA section 3121(a)(5) requires that LEAs report on the number and percentage of ELs meeting 

the challenging State academic standards for four years after such students are no longer receiving 

Title III services. To meet this requirement, an LEA must report to the State on the academic 

achievement of an EL for each year of the four years after such student has achieved ELP and no 

longer receives EL services. These data must include results on content assessments for 

reading/language arts, mathematics and science. The students included in this reporting must 

include all former ELs served by the LEA who have achieved ELP and therefore no longer receive 

any EL services. 

These data must be disaggregated by ELs with disabilities. For more information, please see 

question H-2. An LEA should also disaggregate data by year after exit (e.g., 1st year, 2nd year) to 

ensure that any academic deficits incurred due to participation in a language assistance program 

are recouped.

In reporting these data, an LEA must include students who have met the standardized, statewide 
40

exit procedures required under section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA and no longer receive language 

services. Thus, if a particular SEA has standardized statewide exit procedures that include 

measures in addition to a score of proficient on the statewide ELP assessment, the SEA would not 

report all ELs who attained a score of proficient on the ELP assessment, but rather only those ELs 

who met the standardized statewide exit procedures and therefore no longer receive EL services. 

J-2. May a State use different criteria to identify a former EL for Title III reporting 

purposes than to identify a former EL that may be included in the Academic Achievement 

indicator for accountability purposes under Title I?

No. A student that exits EL status because he meets the State’s definition of proficiency is a 

former EL, and must be considered such for purposes of Title III reporting, Title I accountability 

(if a State chooses to include former ELs for accountability purposes), and a State’s civil rights 

obligations.

J-3. How might an LEA or SEA use the data on former ELs, required under ESEA Section 

3121(a)(5), to improve its programs for ELs?

The ESEA requires that a State and LEA use the data reported under Title III to inform program 

improvement. (ESEA Section 3121(b)). The specific data measure on the academic 

achievement of former ELs will provide an important opportunity to monitor the progress of 

these students to determine whether they are performing academically on par with their never-EL 

peers or whether gaps in achievement remain. These data may be used to determine whether a 

student should be re-assessed for EL services, or whether he or she may need additional supports 

in order to meet the challenging State academic standards.

Under Title VI and the EEOA, States and LEAs have separate obligations to monitor the 

progress of exited EL students. After students have exited an EL program, school districts must 

monitor the academic progress of former EL students to ensure that: the students have not been 

prematurely exited; any academic deficits they incurred as a result of participation in the EL 

program have been remedied; and they are meaningfully participating in the standard 

instructional program comparable to their never-EL peers. When a school district’s monitoring 

of former EL student indicates that a persistent language barrier may be the cause of academic 

difficulty, LEAs should re-assess the student with a valid and reliable, grade-appropriate English 

language proficiency test to determine if there is a persistent language barrier and must offer 

additional language assistance services where needed to meet its civil rights obligations.
41

K-English learners with disabilities35

K-1. What are the new requirements under Title III for English learners with disabilities 

and how can States, LEAs, and schools use this data to improve instruction for English 

learners with disabilities?

The ESEA supports States’ efforts to accelerate the progress of ELs in several ways. These include 

acknowledging the diversity of ELs and drawing attention to subgroups of ELs by requiring that 

certain data reported under Title III be disaggregated by English learners with disabilities.

Specifically, the new reporting requirement under Title III of the ESEA requires that States and 

LEAs report the number and percentage of ELs in the programs and activities who are making 

progress toward achieving English language proficiency in the aggregate and disaggregated, at a 

minimum, by English learners with disabilities; it also requires that the data on former ELs be 

disaggregated by English learners with disabilities (ESEA Section 3121(a)(2), (a)(5)). For more 

information, see question H-2.

Additionally, although not required by Title III, States, LEAs, and schools are encouraged to 

consider further disaggregating the data on English learners with disabilities’ attainment of 

English language proficiency, and the number and percentage of English learners with 

disabilities who have not attained proficiency within five years of initial classification as an EL. 

(See question H-3). States, LEAs, and schools should use the Title III data on English learners 

with disabilities to inform program planning, staff professional development, and instructional 

decision-making. These data can also inform program improvements and help LEAs and States 

determine instruction to address gaps in achievement.

K-2. How do the new Title III reporting requirements differ from the IDEA reporting 

requirements for English learners with disabilities?

The new Title III reporting requirements are intended to track progress toward achieving

English language proficiency for students identified as ELs, including English learners with 

disabilities.

 35 The discussion of English learners with disabilities in this document focuses on the IDEA and does not address the 

rights of students with disabilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990. LEAs must ensure that EL students are not incorrectly identified as students with disabilities 

because of their limited English proficiency, which may not be the basis of a child’s disability determination under the 

IDEA. See 34 CFR §300.306(b)(1)(iii). Such incorrect identification would constitute different treatment based on 

national origin in violation of Title VI.
42

There is no similar reporting requirement under Section 618 of the IDEA. Rather, under Section 

618 of the IDEA, States must continue to report data each year to the Secretary and the public on 

the number and percentage of children with disabilities by race, ethnicity, gender, limited 

English proficiency status, and disability category in specified areas, including the number and 

percentage of children: who are receiving special education and related services on the Statedesignated child count date (Part B Child Count Data); the educational environment in which 

they are receiving services on the State-designated child count date (Part B Educational 

Environments Data); and how they exit special education (e.g., graduate with a regular high 

school diploma, receive a certificate, or dropout) (Part B Exiting Data). (IDEA Section 618, 20 

U.S.C. §1418(a)(1)).

K-3. What should SEAs and LEAs consider when determining the effectiveness of teachers 

and professional development for teachers who teach English learners with disabilities?

Instruction for English learners with disabilities should take into account their specific special 

education and related services needs, as well as their language needs. Teachers should have an 

understanding of the second language acquisition process, and how this might be influenced by 

the child’s individual development, knowledge of EL effective instructional practices and, if 

relevant, the child’s disability. Note that under the IDEA, States and LEAs must establish and 

maintain qualifications to ensure that personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of Part B of 

the IDEA are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained, and that those personnel have

the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities.36 These personnel 

qualifications and personnel development requirements apply to personnel serving English 

learners with disabilities.

K-4. What guidance and resources are available to assist States, LEAs, and school staff in 

providing appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations for English learners 

with disabilities?

Federal resources to support States in this area are available through Department-funded 

technical assistance centers such as the National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) and 

the Center for Parent Information and Resources (CPIR). CPIR provides an annotated list of 

resources that address how to make determinations regarding accommodations; below are some 

examples.

• Accommodations Manual: How to Select, Administer, and Evaluate Use of 

Accommodations for Instruction and Assessment of Students with Disabilities. This 

includes fact sheets and teacher tools.

www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/accommodations_manual.asp;

• Online Accommodations Bibliography: NCEO resource on the range of possible 

accommodations and what empirical research studies have to say about the effects of 

various testing accommodations for students with disabilities.

www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/AccommBibliography/AccomStudies.htm;

• Special Topic Area: Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. NCEO answers 

frequently asked questions about testing accommodations for students with disabilities, 

discusses State policies and research in this area, and offers a number of research-based 

 36 See 34 CFR §§300.156 (personnel qualifications) and 300.207 (personnel development).
43

• publications to guide policy and decision-making.

www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/Accommodations/Accomtopic.htm.
44

Addendum- Standardized Entrance and Exit Requirements

Selected Topics - Entrance and Exit of English Learners from Language Instruction 

Educational Programs, Reporting, and Former English Learners

Purpose

Under section 3113(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as 

amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)37 each State educational agency (SEA) is 

required to establish and implement standardized statewide procedures for English learners (ELs) 

to enter and exit from EL status and language instruction educational programs (LIEPs). This 

document serves as an addendum to the Non-Regulatory Guidance on English Learners and Title 

III issued on September 23, 2016 (hereafter referred to as “2016 EL Guidance”38) and specifically 

addresses statewide entrance and exit procedures for ELs. Additionally, this document addresses 

select topics on reporting and former ELs under Title III of the ESEA. 

The purposes of this document are to (1) assist SEAs in establishing and implementing entrance 

and exit procedures and (2) provide responses to the numerous questions the U.S. Department of 

Education (the Department) has received from SEAs regarding standardized statewide entrance 

and exit procedures for ELs, reporting and former ELs. Because these topics also relate to 

requirements in other laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990 (Title II of the ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), relevant

provisions in these laws are also referenced below. The Department hopes that this document will 

strengthen State and local efforts to improve educational outcomes for ELs by clarifying statutory 

requirements and providing technical assistance. 

EL Entrance and Exit Procedures Generally

1. What are the requirements for an SEA to establish standardized statewide entrance and 

exit procedures for ELs under the ESEA? 

Under section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA, each SEA receiving a Title III, Part A State formula grant 

must establish and implement standardized statewide entrance and exit procedures for ELs after 

conducting timely and meaningful consultation with local educational agencies (LEAs) 

representing the geographic diversity of the State. The requirement that the procedures be 

“statewide” means they must be consistently applied across the State. The ESEA also requires that 

all students who may be ELs be assessed for such status within 30 days of enrollment in a school 

in the State. 

 37 References in this document to the ESEA are to the ESEA as amended by the ESSA.

38 September 23, 2016 Non-Regulatory Guidance: English Learners and Title III available at: 

www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiiiguidenglishlearners92016.pdf.
45

Statewide procedures for entrance might include, for example, the process for identification of 

ELs, the timeline for implementing that process, the home language survey the LEAs use, the 

specific English language proficiency (ELP) screener the LEAs administer and the scores on the 

ELP screener that will result in the identification of a student as an EL. For exit, the statewide 

procedures might include, for example, the timeline for administering the annual ELP assessment, 

the score on the ELP assessment that corresponds to proficiency, and how the four domains of 

language (i.e., speaking, listening, reading and writing) are factored into that score. The exit 

procedures would also include other statewide measures, if any, used to reclassify an EL and to 

exit that student from language services. 

An SEA must ensure, in establishing the statewide entrance and exit procedures, that the 

procedures are consistent with Federal civil rights obligations under Title VI.39 Further 

information specific to exit procedures is provided under the EL Exit Procedures heading below. 

2. What is the timeline by which ELs must be identified?

Under section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA, a student who may be an EL must be assessed for such 

status within 30 days of enrollment in a school in the State. An SEA should also have procedures 

in place to identify in a timely manner ELs who may not have been identified during this initial 

identification period. An SEA should make every effort to identify students who are ELs as soon 

as possible in order to provide timely support for students who may be in need of language 

services. Title VI’s implementing regulations have been interpreted by case law to require that 

LEAs have in place procedures that accurately identify in a timely manner all students who may be 

ELs and determine if they are ELs through a valid and reliable assessment that includes all four 

domains of language (i.e., speaking, listening, reading and writing).40

Each LEA that uses funds under either ESEA Title I or Title III to supplement its LIEP must 

provide a parent of an EL student with notification that outlines their child’s identification as an 

EL and placement in an LIEP.41 The notification must also include the child’s level of English 

proficiency, the methods of instruction used in the program the child will participate in and the 

specific exit requirements for the program, along with other statutorily required information. The 

ESEA requires that this notification be provided no later than 30 calendar days after the beginning 

of the school year or within the first two weeks of placement in an LIEP for a student who enrolls 

after the start of the school year.42 See Q&A E-5 of the 2016 EL Guidance (referenced in footnote 

2) for further information about the parental notification requirement. 

3. May an LEA use Title III funds for EL identification? 

No. The obligation to identify all EL students is part of an LEA’s civil rights obligations.43 

 39 Title VI prohibits race, color and national origin discrimination in any program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance; as recipients of Federal financial assistance, SEAs are required to comply with Title VI. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d 

to d-7. 40 Rios v. Read, 480 F. Supp. 14, 23 (E.D.N.Y. 1978); Cintron v. Brentwood, 455 F. Supp. 57, 64 (E.D.N.Y. 1978). 41 ESEA section 1112(e)(3). 42 Ibid. 43 Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). 
46

Because of the supplanting prohibition in ESEA section 3115(g) (which was not changed by the 

ESSA), as in the past, Title III funds may not be used to satisfy an LEA’s civil rights obligations to 

ELs. The legal obligations of an SEA and an LEA under the civil rights laws are independent of 

the amount or type of State or Federal funding received. Therefore, an LEA may not use Title III 

funds for identification of ELs, including costs of administering a screening assessment, home 

language survey, or related tools.44 

4. May an LEA remove a student’s EL designation if that student was erroneously identified 

as an EL, even if the student does not score proficient on the annual ELP assessment? 

An erroneously identified EL is a student who was identified as an EL but should not have been 

because the student does not in fact meet the definition of “English learner” in ESEA section 

8101(20). The erroneous identification may have occurred as part of the initial identification 

process, e.g., due to a parent’s inaccurate completion of the home language survey, administration 

of an EL screening assessment without providing for appropriate accommodations for a student 

with disabilities, inaccurate scoring on the annual ELP assessment, or other reasons.

In instances where a student is considered to be erroneously identified as an EL, an LEA should 

determine how to proceed based on the individual circumstances. For example, if the LEA 

discovers that appropriate accommodations on the EL screening assessment were not provided to a 

student with a disability, the logical step would be to re-test the student with appropriate 

accommodations. If the results of the screener assessment show that the student is not an EL, the 

EL designation would be removed. 

Erroneous identification may also occur when a parent misunderstands the home language survey 

and indicates that languages other than English are spoken at home because there is occasional use 

of a language other than English, even though English is the dominant language used at home and 

the student does not speak or understand any language other than English. In that case, the LEA 

could remove the EL designation since the student should not have been identified as an EL in the 

first place. 

These are rare exceptions to the general rule that, after a student is identified as an EL, the LEA 

may not remove the EL designation before that student scores proficient on the assessment of the 

four language domains, even if the student’s parents object to the EL designation (although parents 

have the right to decline services).45 

5. Where can States and LEAs find more information on procedures for identifying ELs? 

Tools and resources for identifying all ELs are located in Chapter One of the Department’s English 

 44 See 2016 EL Guidance, Q&A A-8. 45 See ESEA section 1112(e)(3); Q&A E-5 of the 2016 EL Guidance.
47

Learner Toolkit.46

EL Exit Procedures

6. When must a student be exited from EL status for ESEA purposes? 

An EL must be exited from EL status for ESEA purposes (i.e., for purposes of Title I and Title III 

requirements) when the student satisfies the State’s standardized statewide exit procedures. 

Because section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA requires a State to implement statewide exit procedures, a 

student who meets the exit procedures is no longer an EL for ESEA purposes, and the State may 

no longer use Title III funds for services for that student. Title VI’s implementing regulations have 

been interpreted by case law to require that a student demonstrate proficiency on a valid and 

reliable ELP assessment in order to be exited from EL status.47 Under the ESEA, in a State that 

adopts additional exit procedures, a student who scores proficient on the ELP assessment is not 

exited until the student meets those additional objective procedures. In such a State, for example, 

if a student scored proficient on the ELP assessment but a statewide teacher rubric that is a part of 

the exit procedures indicated that the student should not be exited, then that student would remain 

an EL for all ESEA purposes, until she meets all the exit procedures. 

The requirement that an EL be exited from EL status for ESEA purposes when the student satisfies 

the criteria included in the State’s standardized statewide exit procedures applies to an EL with a 

disability48 as well. To ensure that the language proficiency of such a student is validly and 

reliably assessed, the Individualized Education Program (IEP)49 Team or, in the case of a student 

served only under Section 504 or Title II of the ADA, the Section 504 Team or individual or group 

designated to make those decisions under Title II of the ADA,50 must determine whether an EL 

with a disability needs to receive appropriate accommodations on the regular annual ELP 

assessment or, for an EL who is a student with a most significant cognitive disability as identified 

under 34 CFR §200.6(a)(1)(ii), needs to take an alternate assessment to the regular ELP 

assessment, if he or she cannot take the regular ELP assessment, even with appropriate 

accommodations.51 An IEP Team, a Section 504 team, or the individual or group designated to 

 46 See English Learner Toolkit available at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learnertoolkit/index.html.

47 Rios v. Read, 480 F. Supp. at 23. 48 As used in this document, the term “EL with a disability” or “ELs with disabilities” refers to students who are 

children with disabilities under the IDEA as well as students who are not IDEA-eligible but who have disabilities under 

Section 504 or Title II of the ADA. 49 An IEP is a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting in 

accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§300.320-300.324 (34 C.F.R. §300.320(a)). This paragraph specifically discusses the 

responsibilities of a student’s IEP team. Where a student has been identified as a student with a disability under Section 

504 or Title II of the ADA but not under IDEA, the student’s 504 team, or the team or individual designated by the LEA 

under Title II of the ADA would have similar responsibilities. 50 See 34 C.F.R. §200.6(a(1)) and (h)(4). 51 34 C.F.R. §200.6(h)(5). Please note that the SEA must provide the alternate ELP assessment (34 C.F.R. 

§200.6(h)(5)), and may develop alternate ELP achievement standards for the alternate ELP assessment for ELs with the 

most significant cognitive disabilities. Alternate ELP achievement standards set expectations of performance that differ 

in complexity from grade-level ELP achievement standards. See A State’s Guide to the U.S. Department of Education’s 

Assessment Peer Review Process at 
48

make those decisions under Title II of the ADA must make this determination on a case-by-case 

basis in light of the particular needs of an EL with a disability.52 

7. May a student receive English language services after he or she has exited from EL 

status? 

A student may continue to receive English language services with local or State funds even after 

exiting from EL status. However, if exited students need continued language support, an LEA 

should verify that ELs are not being exited prematurely due to a score of proficiency on the State 

ELP assessment that is set too low to ensure actual English language proficiency and, therefore, a 

student’s ability to succeed in the classroom. 

8. May an LEA administer a local ELP assessment to satisfy the ESEA requirement for an 

annual ELP assessment?

Each SEA must require that its LEAs administer a uniform, valid and reliable statewide ELP 

assessment annually to all ELs in schools served by the State, in grades kindergarten through grade 

twelve.53 An SEA therefore may not permit one or more LEAs to use locally administered ELP 

assessments in lieu of the statewide ELP assessment. An LEA may, however, use a local ELP 

assessment for other purposes, such as to help identify the needs of and provide appropriate 

instructional supports for ELs so that they can attain ELP.

9. May an EL with a disability whose disability precludes his or her assessment in one or 

more domains of the State ELP assessment be exited from language services?

Under 34 C.F.R. §200.6(h)(4)(ii), if it is determined on an individualized basis that an EL has a 

disability that precludes assessment in one or more domains of the ELP assessment (speaking, 

listening, reading and writing), such that there are no appropriate accommodations for the affected 

domain or domains, an SEA must assess the child’s English language proficiency based on the 

remaining domains in which it is possible to assess the student.54 This is also consistent with 

obligations under Federal civil rights laws. A determination that a disability precludes assessment 

in one or more domains must be made on an individualized basis by the child’s IEP Team, the 

student’s 504 team or, for students covered under Title II of the ADA, by the team or individual 

designated by the LEA to make those decisions. Under the very rare circumstances when a 

student’s disability precludes assessment in one or more domains, the student may be exited under 

the State’s exit procedures based on a score of proficient on the remaining domains in which the 

 

https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa.html#Standards_and_Assessments_Peer_Review_for further 

information.

52 The IDEA and the IDEA Part B regulations require that all eligible students with disabilities be included in all general 

State and districtwide assessment programs, including assessments described under section 1111 of the ESEA, with 

appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments, if necessary, as indicated in their respective IEPs (Section 

612(a)(16)(A) of the IDEA and 34 C.F.R. §300.160(a); see also section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI) of the IDEA and 34 C.F.R. 

§300.320(a)(6)).

53 34 C.F.R. §§200.5(a)(2), 200.6(h)(1). 54 See the example provided in 34 C.F.R. §200.6(h)(4)(ii) of a non-verbal EL who because of an identified disability 

cannot take the speaking portion of the ELP assessment.
49

student is able to be appropriately assessed. An SEA that uses a composite or weighted score 

across the domains should determine what revised composite or weighting is needed for exit in less 

than all four domains. 

The Department expects that only in very rare circumstances will children need to be assessed in 

fewer than four domains due to a disability that precludes assessment in a particular domain, and 

that the vast majority of ELs with disabilities will be able to be assessed in all four domains, with 

appropriate accommodations as needed, or by taking an alternate ELP assessment for ELs who are 

students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The Department’s assessment peer review 

process will evaluate the technical quality of the ELP assessment, including that it provides valid 

and reliable results. This includes the State’s procedures for assessing ELs with disabilities on less 

than the four domains (see A State’s Guide to the U.S. Department of Education’s Assessment Peer 

Review Process referenced in footnote 15 above). 

10. May a SEA exit an EL from language services using only the student’s score on the State 

reading/language arts assessment? 

No. Section 1111(b)(1)(F) of the ESEA requires each SEA to adopt ELP standards that “are 

derived from the four recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading and writing,” “address 

the different proficiency levels of ELs” and “are aligned with the challenging State academic 

standards.” The ESEA thus recognizes that English language proficiency and State academic 

content standards are distinct concepts. While assessments on ELP and reading/language arts 

content are related, they fundamentally measure different skills. The annual ELP assessment must 

be a valid and reliable measure of ELP, including speaking, listening, reading and writing skills, 

and must be aligned with the ELP standards.55

Title VI’s implementing regulations have been interpreted by case law to require that a student 

demonstrate proficiency on a valid and reliable ELP assessment in order to be exited from EL 

status.56

11. Does an SEA have the option of including in its exit procedures other objective, valid and 

reliable procedures in addition to the State’s ELP assessment? 

An SEA may include additional measures in its standardized statewide exit procedures that are 

valid, reliable objective and applied and weighted the same way across the State.57 For example, 

an SEA may include local input such as the use of a teacher rubric or objective portfolio as part of 

its statewide exit procedures, as long as such the local input is applied and weighted consistently 

across the State. A state should not use additional procedures in its exit procedures that do not 

measure English language proficiency, such as the results of the mathematics content assessment.

Reporting

See Section H of the 2016 EL Guidance for additional questions and answers regarding reporting 

 55 ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(G), 34 C.F.R. §200.6(h)(1). 56 Rios v. Read, 480 F. Supp. at 23. 57 ESEA section 3113(b)(2).
50

requirements. 

12. In an LEA that receives a Title III subgrant and provides services to ELs in prekindergarten (pre-k), when counting the number of years that an EL has received services 

for the purposes of reporting, should the LEA count pre-k or kindergarten as the first year 

of classification as an EL? 

Under ESEA section 3121(a)(6), an LEA receiving a Title III subgrant must report the number and 

percentage of ELs who have not yet attained ELP within five years of initial classification as an EL 

and first enrollment in the LEA. Although an LEA may use Title III funds to serve ELs as young 

as age three, it is not required to do so. Additionally, under 34 C.F.R. §200.5(a)(2), an SEA must 

administer the ELP assessment annually to all ELs in schools served by the State in all grades in 

which there are ELs, kindergarten through grade twelve. Therefore, an SEA should only include 

students in kindergarten through grade twelve for all reporting requirements under Title III, Part A, 

including reporting on ELs who have not attained ELP within five years of initial classification as 

an EL. 

13. If a child has been identified as an EL but the parents decline to allow the child to 

participate in language services, should the LEA count this child as Title III-served in its 

biennial report to the State?

No. Under ESEA section 3121, an LEA receiving a Title III subgrant must report on the activities 

conducted and ELs receiving language services in the LEA. An LEA must report, among other 

measures, the number and percentage of ELs who exit LIEPs and the number and percentage of 

ELs meeting State standards for each of the four years after such children no longer receive 

language services. An LEA should not include ELs whose parents have declined language 

services in this report. Note, however, that under the ESEA, all ELs in kindergarten through grade 

twelve must be annually assessed for ELP, including those whose parents refuse their participation 

in language services.58 

Former English Learners

See updates to J-1 above

 58 ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(G); 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.5(a)(2), 200.6(h). 
51

Appendix A: Glossary

English learner – The term “English learner,” when used with respect to an individual, means 

an individual —

(A) who is aged 3 through 21;

(B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;

(C)(i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than 

English;

(ii)(I) who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; 

and

(II) who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a 

significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or

(iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who 

comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and

(D) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may 

be sufficient to deny the individual —

(i) the ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;

(ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is 

English; or

(iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society. 

(ESEA Section 8101(20))

English learners with disabilities – The phrase “English learners with disabilities” refers to 

English learners who are also “children with disabilities” under the IDEA, as defined in Section 

602(3) of that Act and 34 CFR §300.8.

(ESEA Section 3201(4))

Immigrant children and youth – The term “immigrant children and youth” means individuals 

who—

(A) are aged 3 through 21;

(B) were not born in any State; and

(C) have not been attending one or more schools in any one or more States for more than 3 full 

academic years.

(ESEA Section 3201(5))
52

Note that “State” is defined in Section 3201(13) of the ESEA to include the 50 States, the District 

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Therefore, students born in Puerto Rico cannot be included as 

“immigrant” students under Title III.

Immigrant subgrant – These are subgrants for which each State must reserve not more than 15 

percent of the State’s Title III allocation for LEAs in the State that have experienced a significant 

increase in the percentage or number of immigrant children and youth who have enrolled in 

schools in the LEA in the current fiscal year compared to the average of the last two fiscal years. 

(See ESEA Section 3114(d)).

Language instruction educational program – The term “language instruction educational 

program” means an instruction course —

(A) in which an English learner is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English 

proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic standards; and

(B) that may make instructional use of both English and a child's native language to enable the 

child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English 

proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become 

proficient in English and a second language.

(ESEA Section 3201(7))

Title III EL formula subgrant – These are formula subgrants to LEAs that each State must 

award for a fiscal year by allocating funds in a timely manner to each LEA in the State with an 

approved Title III plan. (See ESEA Section 3114(a)). Grant funds are allocated based on the 

number of ELs in the LEA, and are only made to LEAs for which the number of ELs yields a 

subgrant of at least $10,000. (ESEA Section 3114(b)).
53

Appendix B: Resources by Topic Area

The U.S. Department of Education does not mandate or prescribe practices, models, or other 

activities in this non-regulatory guidance document. This guidance contains examples of, 

adaptations of, and links to resources created and maintained by other public and private 

organizations. This information, informed by research and gathered in part from practitioners, is 

provided for the reader’s convenience and is included here to offer examples of the many 

resources that educators, parents, advocates, administrators, and other concerned parties may 

find helpful and use at their discretion. The U.S. Department of Education does not control or 

guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information.

Further, the inclusion of links to items and examples does not reflect their importance, nor are 

they intended to represent or be an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any 

views expressed, or materials provided.

Children with Disabilities

See question and answer K-4.

Data

Through the Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) program, the Department has 

supported the development of data systems to improve instruction, practices, services, and 

policies.

The Department provides data through its user-friendly tool, ED Data Express, including data on 

ELs: http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/

The Department provides data on ELs as part of the Civil Rights Data Collection: 

http://ocrdata.ed.gov/

Educational Experiences of English Learners: Analyses of Extant Data (2016). Three briefs

describe the educational experiences and performance of English learner (EL) students based on 

data from the 2011–12 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and other data. There is an 

instructional staff brief, college preparatory courses and programs brief, and grade retention, 

high school graduation, and GED attainment brief. 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#titleiii

Dual Language Learners

Dual Language Education Programs: Current State Policies and Practices (December 2015) This 

report was prepared under a U.S. Department of Education contract with the American Institutes 

for Research, and contains an analysis of research and extant data related to dual language 

education policies and practices.

https://ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/TO20_DualLanguageRpt_508.pdf
54

This U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services joint

Policy Statement on Supporting the Development of Children Who are Dual Language Learners

in Early Childhood Programs provides recommendations for States and local communities to 

promote the development and learning of young children, birth to age five, who are dual 

language learners.

General Resources

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) – NCELA operates under a 

contract funded by the U.S. Department of Education that is administered by the Office of 

English Language Acquisition. The NCELA website contains a searchable resource library of 

more than 20,000 items related to English learner education. The site also contains demographic 

and State data, State profiles, links to external resources, and many other types of valuable 

information. http://ncela.ed.gov/

The Center for Applied Linguistics has developed a variety of publications related to the 

teaching and learning of languages, linguistics, policy, immigrant and refugee integration, and 

more. http://www.cal.org/resource-center/publications

Language Instruction Educational Programs

The paper, Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEPs): A Review of the Foundational

Literature (2012), describes LIEP characteristics that may influence the quality of programs 

delivered to ELs in grades K through 12. 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#titleiii

The U.S. Department of Education’s English Learner Tool Kit contains recommendations on 

promising practices to ensure LIEPs facilitate improved ELP and academic outcomes. 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/eltoolkit.pdf.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Educational Sciences Practice Guide “Teaching 

academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school” provides 

research and practice on instructing ELs. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=19.

The U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) has conducted reviews 

to examine the evidence of effectiveness of interventions designed for students whose primary 

language is not English and who have limited English speaking, reading, writing, and listening 

skills. Reviewed studies are found on the WWC website. 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Topic.aspx?sid=6

The Center for Applied Linguistics’ report, Developing Academic Literacy and Language in the

Content Areas, provides research-based strategies and practical, hands-on tools to help educators 

develop effective classroom strategies aligned with standards. http://www.cal.org/resourcecenter/publications/developing-academic-literacy-and-language-in-the-content-areas

Legal Obligations to English Learners and English Learner Parents

Information about an LEA’s obligations to EL students and limited English proficient parents 

under Title VI and the EEOA is available in a Dear Colleague Letter jointly released by the
55

Department and the U.S. Department of Justice in January 2015. 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf.

Immigrant Children and Youth

For information regarding immigrant students see OCR’s Guidance for School Districts to 

Ensure Equal Access for All Children to Public Schools Regardless of Immigration Status. 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/raceorigin.html. Also 

see the following resources available from the Office for Civil Rights:

Dear Colleague Letter (DCL): http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague201405.pdf

Q&A about DCL: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201405.pdf

Fact sheet about DCL: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201405.pdf

The U. S. Department of Education, as part of the White House Task Force on New Americans, 

has developed a number of resources for States, LEAs, and schools to support immigrant 

children and youth. For the totality of resources, please visit the Department’s immigration 

webpage available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/immigration-resources.html.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Newcomer Tool Kit is designed to help schools support 

immigrants, refugees, and their families with a successful integration process. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/new-comer-toolit/ncomertoolkit.pdf

Private School Consultation and Equitable Services

The Office of Non-Public Education (ONPE) provides resources to help assist SEAs and LEAs 

in meeting their obligations to ensure the provision of equitable services to eligible private 

school students and teachers in applicable programs. Information on ESSA and the participation 

of private school students, teachers, and other educational personnel are located on ONPE’s

ESSA webpage.

Title III Program Implementation

For general information on Title III program implementation see the Biennial Report to Congress 

on the Implementation of the Title III Grant Program. (October 2015) Available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.htm

For information from LEAs and SEAs regarding implementation of the Title III State Formula 

Grant Program, see the National Evaluation of Title III Implementation: Report on State and

Local Implementation (2012). This report answers a range of questions about the implementation 

of the Title III program drawing on data collected during the 2009-10 school year through 

telephone interviews with all State Title III directors, a survey of a nationally representative
56

sample of 1,528 Title III subgrantees, and case studies of a purposive sample of 12 LEAs nested 

within five States. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#titleiii