CONSOLIDATED STATE PERFORMANCE REPORT: PART I

for reporting on 

School Year 2013-14

PART I DUE DECEMBER 18, 2014

5PM EST

The Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) is the required annual reporting tool for 

each State, the Bureau of Indian Education, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as authorized 

under Section 9303iof the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended. The 

CSPR consists of two parts. Part I of the CSPR collects data related to the five ESEA goals 

established in the approved June 2002 Consolidated State Application, information required for 

the Annual State Report to the Secretary, as described in section 1111(h)(4) of ESEA, and data 

required under McKinney-Vento Homeless Program. Part II of the CSPR collects information 

related to state activities and outcomes of specific ESEA programs needed for the programs’ 

GPRA indicators or other assessment and reporting requirement.

Paperwork Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a 

collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB 

control number for this information collection is 1810-0614 (expires 7/31/15). The time required to 

complete this information collection for Part I and Part II combined is estimated to average 30.84

hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather 

the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments 

concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, 

please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4537. If you have 

comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write 

directly to: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202. 
OMB.wd.3

2

Table of Contents

Page

CONSOLIDATED STATE PERFORMANCE REPORT: PART I............................................................... 1

1.1 STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT................................................................. 4

1.1.1 Academic Content Standards .................................................................................. 4

1.1.1.1 Academic Achievement Standards in Mathematics, Reading/Language Arts and Science .. 5

1.1.2 Assessments in Mathematics, Reading/Language Arts and Science.................. 6

1.1.3 Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities........................................... 7

1.1.3.1 Percentages of Funds Used for Standards and Assessment Development and Other 

Purposes 7

1.1.3.2 Uses of Funds for Purposes Other than Standards and Assessment Development .............. 8

1.2 PARTICIPATION IN STATE ASSESSMENTS.............................................................................. 9

1.2.1 Participation of All Students in Mathematics Assessment................................... 9

1.2.2 Participation of Students with Disabilities in Mathematics Assessment .......... 10

1.2.3 Participation of All Students in the Reading/Language Arts Assessment........ 11

1.2.3.1 Recently Arrived LEP Students Taking ELP Assessments in Lieu of Reading/Language Arts 

Assessments 11

1.2.4 Participation of Students with Disabilities in Reading/Language Arts 

Assessment.................................................................................................................................. 12

1.2.5 Participation of All Students in the Science Assessment................................... 12

1.2.6 Participation of Students with Disabilities in Science Assessment ................. 12

1.3 STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT....................................................................................13

1.3.1 Student Academic Achievement in Mathematics................................................. 13

1.3.2 Student Academic Achievement in Reading/Language Arts.............................. 14

1.3.3 Student Academic Achievement in Science......................................................... 14

1.4 SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY .........................................................................15

1.4.1 All Schools and Districts Accountability .............................................................. 15

For an SEA with an approved ESEA flexibility request that submitted its request in 

February 2012 or November 2011:...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.4.2 Title I School Accountability .................................................................................. 16

1.4.3 Accountability of Districts That Received Title I Funds ...................................... 17

1.4.4.3 Corrective Action ................................................................................................................18

1.4.4.4 Restructuring – Year 2 ........................................................................................................18

1.4.5.2 Actions Taken for Districts That Received Title I Funds and Were Identified for 

Improvement 19

1.4.5.3 Corrective Action ................................................................................................................19

1.4.7 Appeal of AYP and Identification Determinations................................................ 20

1.4.8 Sections 1003 (a) and (g) School Improvement Funds........................................ 20

1.4.8.5 Use of Sections 1003(a) and (g) School Improvement Funds .............................................21

1.4.8.6 Actions Taken for Title I Schools Identified for Improvement Supported by Funds Other 

than Those of Sections 1003(a) and 1003(g).................................................................................................22

1.4.9 Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services ........................ 23

1.4.9.1 Public School Choice ..........................................................................................................23

1.4.9.2 Supplemental Educational Services ....................................................................................25

1.5 TEACHER QUALITY.....................................................................................................................26
OMB.wd.3

3

1.5.1 Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Highly Qualified .......... 26

1.5.2 Reasons Core Academic Classes Are Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly 

Qualified 29

1.5.2.1 Elementary School Classes .................................................................................................29

1.5.2.2 Secondary School Classes...................................................................................................30

1.5.3 Poverty Quartiles and Metrics Used...................................................................... 30

1.5.3.1 Poverty Quartile Breaks......................................................................................................31

1.6 TITLE III AND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS..................................................32

1.6.1 Language Instruction Educational Programs....................................................... 32

1.6.2 Student Demographic Data..................................................................................... 33

1.6.2.1 Number of ALL LEP Students in the State...........................................................................33

1.6.2.2 Number of LEP Students Who Received Title III Language Instruction Educational 

Program Services..........................................................................................................................................34

1.6.2.3 Most Commonly Spoken Languages in the State.................................................................34

1.6.3 Student Performance Data...................................................................................... 34

1.6.3.5 Native Language Assessments.............................................................................................37

1.6.3.6 Title III Served Monitored Former LEP (MFLEP) Students...............................................38

1.6.4 Title III Subgrantees................................................................................................. 40

1.6.4.1 Title III Subgrantee Performance........................................................................................41

1.6.4.2 State Accountability.............................................................................................................41

1.6.4.3 Termination of Title III Language Instruction Educational Programs...............................42

1.6.5 Education Programs and Activities for Immigrant Students .............................. 42

1.6.5.1 Immigrant Students .............................................................................................................42

1.6.6 Teacher Information and Professional Development .......................................... 43

1.6.6.1 Teacher Information............................................................................................................43

1.6.6.2 Professional Development Activities of Subgrantees Related to the Teaching and Learning 

of LEP Students 44

1.6.7 State Subgrant Activities ........................................................................................ 45

1.6.7.1 State Subgrant Process........................................................................................................45

1.6.7.2 Steps To Shorten the Distribution of Title III Funds to Subgrantees...................................46

1.7 PERSISTENTLY DANGEROUS SCHOOLS.................................................................................46

1.9 EDUCATION FOR HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTHS PROGRAM................................46

1.9.1 All LEAs (with and without McKinney-Vento subgrants) .................................... 47

1.9.1.1 Homeless Children and Youths ...........................................................................................47

1.9.1.2 Primary Nighttime Residence of Homeless Children and Youths .......................................47

1.9.1.3 Subgroups of Homeless Students Enrolled..........................................................................48

1.9.2 LEAs with McKinney-Vento Subgrants ................................................................. 48

1.9.2.1 Homeless Children and Youths Served by McKinney-Vento Subgrants..............................48

1.9.2.2 Subgroups of Homeless Students Served.............................................................................49

1.9.3 Academic Achievement of Homeless Students ................................................... 49

1.9.3.1 Reading Assessment ............................................................................................................49

1.9.3.2 Mathematics Assessment .....................................................................................................50

1.9.3.3 Science Assessment .............................................................................................................50
OMB.wd.3

4

1.1 STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT

This section requests descriptions of the State’s implementation of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA) academic 

content standards, academic achievement standards and assessments to meet 

the requirements of Section 1111(b)(1) of ESEA. 

1.1.1 Academic Content Standards

Indicate below whether your state has made or is planning to make revisions to 

or change the State's academic content standards in mathematics, 

reading/language arts or science since the State’s content standards were most 

recently approved through ED’s peer review process for State assessment 

systems. If yes, indicate specifically in what school year your State implemented 

or will implement the revisions or changes. 

_____ No revisions or changes to academic content standards in mathematics, 

reading/language arts or science made or planned. 

_____ State has revised or changed its academic content standards in 

mathematics, reading/language arts or science or is planning to make 

revisions to or change its academic content standards in mathematics, 

reading/language arts or science. Indicate below the year these changes 

were or will be implemented or “Not Applicable” to indicate that changes 

were not made or will not be made in the subject area. 

Acceptable responses are a school year (e.g., 2013-14) or Not Applicable.

Academic Content 

Standards

Mathematics Reading/ 

Language Arts

Science

Academic Content 

Standards

If the responses above do not fully describe revisions or changes to your State’s 

academic content standards, describe the revisions or changes below. 

The response is limited to 1,000 characters.
OMB.wd.3

5

1.1.1.1 Academic Achievement Standards in Mathematics, 

Reading/Language Arts and Science

Indicate below whether your state has changed or is planning to change the 

State's academic achievement standards in mathematics, reading/language arts 

or science since the State’s academic achievement standards were most 

recently approved through ED’s peer review process for State assessment 

systems. If yes, indicate specifically in what school year your State implemented 

or will implement the changes. 

As applicable, include changes to academic achievement standards based on 

any assessments (e.g., alternate assessments based on alternate achievement 

standards, alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards, 

native language assessments, or others) implemented to meet the assessment 

requirements under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA. 

_____ No revisions or changes to academic achievement standards in 

mathematics, reading/language arts or science made or planned. 

_____ State has changed its academic achievement standards or is planning to 

change its academic achievement standards in mathematics, 

reading/language arts or science. Indicate below either the school year in 

which these changes were or will be implemented or “Not Applicable” to 

indicate that changes were not made or will not be made in the subject 

area. 

Acceptable responses are a school year (e.g., 2013-14) or Not Applicable.

Academic Achievement 

Standards for

Mathematics Reading/ 

Language Arts

Science

Regular Assessments in 

Grades 3-8

Regular Assessments in 

High School

Alternate Assessments

Based on Grade-Level 

Achievement Standards 

(if applicable)

Alternate Assessments

Based on Modified 

Achievement Standards 

(if applicable)

Alternate Assessments

Based on Alternate 
OMB.wd.3

6

Academic Achievement 

Standards for

Mathematics Reading/ 

Language Arts

Science

Achievement Standards

If the responses above do not fully describe revisions or changes to your State’s 

academic achievement standards, describe the revisions or changes below. 

The response is limited to 1,000 characters.

1.1.2 Assessments in Mathematics, Reading/Language Arts

and Science

Indicate below whether your state has changed or is planning to change the 

State's academic assessments in mathematics, reading/language arts or science 

since the State’s academic assessments were most recently approved through 

ED’s peer review process for State assessment systems. If yes, indicate 

specifically in what school year your State implemented or will implement the 

changes. 

As applicable, include any assessments (e.g., alternate assessments based on 

alternate achievement standards, alternate assessments based on modified 

achievement standards, native language assessments, or others) implemented 

to meet the assessment requirements under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA.

_____ No changes to assessments in mathematics, reading/language arts or 

science made or planned. 

_____ State has changed or is planning to change its assessments in 

mathematics, reading/language arts or science. Indicate below the year 

these changes were implemented or “Not Applicable” to indicate that 

changes were not made or will not be made in the subject area. 

Acceptable responses are a school year (e.g., 2013-14) or Not Applicable.

Academic Assessments Mathematics Reading/ 

Language Arts

Science

Regular Assessments in 

Grades 3-8

Regular Assessments in 

High School

Alternate Assessments 
OMB.wd.3

7

Academic Assessments Mathematics Reading/ 

Language Arts

Science

Based on Grade-Level 

Achievement Standards 

(if applicable)

Alternate Assessments 

Based on Modified 

Achievement Standards 

(if applicable)

Alternate Assessments 

Based on Alternate 

Achievement Standards

If the responses above do not fully describe revisions or changes to your State’s 

academic achievement standards, describe the revisions or changes below. 

The response is limited to 1,000 characters.

1.1.3 Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities

1.1.3.1 Percentages of Funds Used for Standards and 

Assessment Development and Other Purposes

For funds your State had available under ESEA section 6111 (Grants for State 

Assessments and Related Activities) during SY 2013-14, estimate what percentage of 

the funds your State used for the following (round to the nearest ten percent).

Purpose Percentage (rounded to the nearest ten 

percent)

To pay the costs of the development of the 

State assessments and standards required 

by Section 1111(b)

________%

To administer assessments required by 

Section 1111(b) or to carry out other 

activities described in section 6111 and 

other activities related to ensuring that the 

State’s schools and local educational 

agencies are held accountable for results

________%
OMB.wd.3

8

1.1.3.2 Uses of Funds for Purposes Other than Standards and 

Assessment Development

For funds your State had available under ESEA section 6111 (Grants for State 

Assessments and Related Activities) during SY 2013-14 that were used for 

purposes other than the costs of the development of the State assessments and 

standards required by section 1111(b), for what purposes did your State use the 

funds? (Enter “yes” for all that apply and “no” for all that do not apply).

Purpose Used for 

Purpose 

(yes/no)

Administering assessments required by Section 1111(b)

Developing challenging State academic content and student academic 

achievement standards and aligned assessments in academic subjects 

for which standards and assessments are not required by Section 

1111(b).

Developing or improving assessments of English language proficiency 

necessary to comply with Section 1111(b)(7)

Ensuring the continued validity and reliability of State assessments, 

and/or refining State assessments to ensure their continued alignment 

with the State’s academic content standards and to improve the 

alignment of curricula and instructional materials

Developing multiple measures to increase the reliability and validity of 

State assessment systems

Strengthening the capacity of local educational agencies and schools to 

provide all students the opportunity to increase educational achievement, 

including carrying out professional development activities aligned with 

State student academic achievement standards and assessments

Expanding the range of accommodations available to students with 

limited English proficiency and students with disabilities (IDEA) to 

improve the rates of inclusion of such students, including professional 

development activities aligned with State academic achievement 

standards and assessments

Improving the dissemination of information on student achievement and 

school performance to parents and the community, including the 

development of information and reporting systems designed to identify 

best educational practices based on scientifically based research or to 

assist in linking records of student achievement, length of enrollment, and 

graduation over time

Other
OMB.wd.3

9

1.2 PARTICIPATION IN STATE ASSESSMENTS1

This section collects data on the participation of students in the State 

assessments. 

Note: States are not required to report these data by the racial/ethnic groups

shown in the table below; instead, they are required to report these data by the 

major racial and ethnic groups that are identified in their Accountability 

Workbooks. The charts below display racial/ethnic data that have been mapped 

from the major racial and ethnic groups identified in their workbooks to the 

racial/ethnic groups shown.

1.2.1 Participation of All Students in Mathematics 

Assessment

In the table below, provide the number of students enrolled during the State’s 

testing window for mathematics assessments required under Section 1111(b)(3) 

of ESEA (regardless of whether the students were present for a full academic 

year) and the number of students who participated in the mathematics 

assessment in accordance with ESEA. The percentage of students who were 

tested for mathematics will be calculated automatically.

The student group “children with disabilities (IDEA)” includes children who 

participated in the regular assessments with or without accommodations and 

alternate assessments. Do not include former students with disabilities (IDEA). 

Do not include students only covered under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973. 

The student group “limited English proficient (LEP) students” includes recently 

arrived students who have attended schools in the United States for fewer than 

12 months. Do not include former LEP students.

Student Group

# Students 

Enrolled

# Students 

Participating

Percentage of 

Students 

Participating

All students (Auto calculated)

American Indian or (Auto calculated)

 

1

The “Asian/Pacific Islander” row in the tables below represent either the value reported by the state to the Department 

of Education for the major racial and ethnic group "Asian/Pacific Islander" or an aggregation of values reported by the 

state for the major racial and ethnic groups "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or Pacific Islander" (and 

"Filipino" in the case of California). When the values reported in the Asian/Pacific Islander row represent the U. S. 

Department of Education aggregation of other values reported by the state, the detail for “Asian” and Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander” are also included in the following rows. Disaggregated reporting for assessment participation 

data is done according to the provisions outlined within each state's Accountability Workbook. Accordingly, not every 

state uses major racial and ethnic groups which enable detail of Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) populations.
OMB.wd.3

10

Student Group

# Students 

Enrolled

# Students 

Participating

Percentage of 

Students 

Participating

Alaska Native

Asian or Pacific Islander (Auto calculated)

Asian (Auto calculated)

Native Hawaiian or

Other Pacific 

Islander

(Auto calculated)

Black or African 

American

(Auto calculated)

Hispanic or Latino (Auto calculated)

White (Auto calculated)

Two or more races

Children with disabilities 

(IDEA)

(Auto calculated)

Limited English

proficient (LEP) students

(Auto calculated)

Economically 

disadvantaged students

(Auto calculated)

Migratory students (Auto calculated)

Male (Auto calculated)

Female (Auto calculated)

1.2.2 Participation of Students with Disabilities (IDEA) in 

Mathematics Assessment

In the table below, provide the number of children with disabilities (IDEA) 

participating during the State’s testing window in mathematics assessments 

required under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA (regardless of whether the children 

were present for a full academic year) by the type of assessment. The 

percentage of children with disabilities (IDEA) who participated in the 

mathematics assessment for each assessment option will be calculated 

automatically. The total number of children with disabilities (IDEA) participating 

will also be calculated automatically. 

The data provided below should include mathematics participation data from all 

students with disabilities (IDEA) as defined under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). Do not include former students with disabilities (IDEA). Do 

not include students only covered under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973.
OMB.wd.3

11

Type of Assessment # Children with 

Disabilities (IDEA)

Participating

Percentage of Children 

with Disabilities (IDEA)

Participating, Who Took 

the Specified 

Assessment

Regular Assessment 

without Accommodations

(Auto calculated)

Regular Assessment with 

Accommodations

(Auto calculated)

Alternate Assessment 

Based on Grade-Level 

Achievement Standards

(Auto calculated)

Alternate Assessment 

Based on Modified

Achievement Standards

(Auto calculated)

Alternate Assessment 

Based on Alternate 

Achievement Standards

(Auto calculated)

Total (Auto calculated) ///////////////////////////////////////

1.2.3 Participation of All Students in the Reading/Language 

Arts Assessment

This section is similar to 1.2.1 and collects data on the State’s reading/language 

arts assessment. 

1.2.3.1 Recently Arrived LEP Students Taking ELP 

Assessments in Lieu of Reading/Language Arts 

Assessments

In the table below, provide the number of recently arrived LEP students (as 

defined in 34 C.F.R. Part 200.6(b)(4)) included in the participation counts in 1.2.3 

who took an assessment of English language proficiency in lieu of the State’s 

reading/language arts assessment, as permitted under 34 C.F.R. Part 200.20.

Recently Arrived LEP Students

#

Recently arrived LEP students who took 

an assessment of English language 

proficiency in lieu of the State’s 

reading/language arts assessment
OMB.wd.3

12

1.2.4 Participation of Students with Disabilities (IDEA) in 

Reading/Language Arts Assessment

This section is similar to 1.2.2 and collects data on the State’s reading/language 

arts assessment. 

The data provided should include reading/language arts participation data from 

all students with disabilities (IDEA) as defined under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Do not include former students with disabilities 

(IDEA). Do not include students only covered under Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

Note: For this question only, report on students with disabilities (IDEA) who are 

also LEP students in the U.S. less than 12 months who took the ELP in lieu of 

the statewide reading/language arts assessment.

1.2.5 Participation of All Students in the Science Assessment

This section is similar to 1.2.1 and collects data on the State’s science 

assessment. 

1.2.6 Participation of Students with Disabilities (IDEA) in 

Science Assessment

This section is similar to 1.2.2 and collects data on the State’s science 

assessment. The data provided should include science participation results from 

all students with disabilities (IDEA) as defined under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Do not include former students with disabilities 

(IDEA). Do not include students only covered under Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 
OMB.wd.3

13

1.3 STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT2

This section collects data on student academic achievement on the State 

assessments.

Note: States are not required to report these data by the racial/ethnic groups

shown in the table below; instead, they are required to report these data by the 

major racial and ethnic groups that are identified in their Accountability 

Workbooks. The charts below display racial/ethnic data that have been mapped 

from the major racial and ethnic groups identified in their workbooks to the 

racial/ethnic groups shown.

1.3.1 Student Academic Achievement in Mathematics

In the format of the table below, provide the number of students who received a 

valid score on the State assessment(s) in mathematics implemented to meet the 

requirements of Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA (regardless of whether the students 

were present for a full academic year) and for whom a proficiency level was 

assigned, and the number of these students who scored at or above proficient, in 

grades 3 through 8 and high school. The percentage of students who scored at 

or above proficient is calculated automatically.

The student group “children with disabilities (IDEA)” includes children who 

participated, and for whom a proficiency level was assigned in the regular 

assessments with or without accommodations and alternate assessments. Do 

not include former students with disabilities (IDEA). The student group “limited 

English proficient (LEP) students” does include recently arrived students who 

have attended schools in the United States for fewer than 12 months. Do not

include former LEP students. 

Grade (insert grade #)

# Students Who 

Received a Valid 

Score and for 

Whom a 

Proficiency

Level Was 

Assigned

# Students 

Scoring at or 

Above Proficient

Percentage of 

Students 

Scoring at or 

Above Proficient

All students (Auto calculated)

 

2

The “Asian/Pacific Islander” row in the tables below represent either the value reported by the state to the Department 

of Education for the major racial and ethnic group "Asian/Pacific Islander" or an aggregation of values reported by the 

state for the major racial and ethnic groups "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or Pacific Islander" (and 

"Filipino" in the case of California). When the values reported in the Asian/Pacific Islander row represent the U. S. 

Department of Education aggregation of other values reported by the state, the detail for “Asian” and Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander” are also included in the following rows. Disaggregated reporting for academic achievement data 

is done according to the provisions outlined within each state's Accountability Workbook. Accordingly, not every state 

uses major racial and ethnic groups which enable detail of Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) populations.
OMB.wd.3

14

Grade (insert grade #)

# Students Who 

Received a Valid 

Score and for 

Whom a 

Proficiency

Level Was 

Assigned

# Students 

Scoring at or 

Above Proficient

Percentage of 

Students 

Scoring at or 

Above Proficient

American Indian or Alaska 

Native

(Auto calculated)

Asian or Pacific Islander (Auto calculated)

Asian (Auto calculated)

Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander

(Auto calculated)

Black or African American (Auto calculated)

Hispanic or Latino (Auto calculated)

White (Auto calculated)

Two or more races

Children with disabilities 

(IDEA)

(Auto calculated)

Limited English proficient 

(LEP) students

(Auto calculated)

Economically 

disadvantaged students

(Auto calculated)

Migratory students (Auto calculated)

Male (Auto calculated)

Female (Auto calculated)

1.3.2 Student Academic Achievement in Reading/Language 

Arts

This section is similar to 1.3.1. The only difference is that this section collects 

data on the State’s reading/language arts assessment, and the difference noted 

in the paragraph below.

The student group “limited English proficient (LEP) students” does not include 

recently arrived students who have attended schools in the United States for 

fewer than 12 months and who took an assessment of English language 

proficiency in lieu of the State’s reading/language arts assessment. Do not

include former LEP students. 

1.3.3 Student Academic Achievement in Science

This section is similar to 1.3.1. The only difference is that this section collects 

data on the State’s science assessment administered at least once in each of the 

following grade spans: 3 through 5, 6 through 9, and 10 through 12.
OMB.wd.3

15

Limited English Proficient (LEP) students include recently arrived students who 

have attended schools in the United States for fewer than 12 months. Do not 

include former LEP students.

1.4 SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY

This section collects data on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status of 

schools and districts. 

1.4.1 All Schools and Districts Accountability

For an SEA that has not received ESEA flexibility, or an SEA that received ESEA 

flexibility without the optional waiver to not make AYP determinations for LEAs 

and schools:

In the table below, provide the total number of public elementary and secondary 

schools and districts in the State, including charters, and the total number of 

those schools and districts that made AYP based on data for SY 2013-14. The 

percentage that made AYP will be calculated automatically.

Entity Total #

Total # that Made AYP 

in SY 2013-14

Percentage that Made 

AYP in 

SY 2013-14

Schools

[1.4.1.1.x.]

[1.] [2.] (Auto calculated)

(Auto calculated)

Districts

[1.4.1.2.x.]

[1.] [2.] (Auto calculated)

(Auto calculated)

For an SEA with an approved ESEA flexibility request that includes the optional 

waiver to not make AYP determinations for LEAs and schools:

In the table below, provide the total number of public elementary and secondary 

schools and districts in the State, including charters, and the total number of 

those schools and districts that made all of their AMOs, the 95 percent 

participation rate, and other academic indicator3based on data for SY 2013-14. 

The percentage will be calculated automatically.

 

3

For a high school, the other academic indicator is always graduation rate.
OMB.wd.3

16

Entity Total #

Total # that Met All 

AMOs, 95 Percent 

Participation Rate, 

and Other Academic 

Indicator in SY 2013-

14

Percentage that Met 

All AMOs, 95 Percent 

Participation Rate, 

and Other Academic 

Indicator in SY 2013-

14

Schools (Auto calculated)

Districts (Auto calculated)

1.4.2 Title I School Accountability

For an SEA that has not received ESEA flexibility, or an SEA that received ESEA 

flexibility without the optional waiver to not make AYP determinations for LEAs 

and schools:

In the table below, provide the total number of public Title I schools by type and 

the total number of those schools that made AYP based on data for SY 2013-14. 

Include only public Title I schools. Do not include Title I programs operated by 

local educational agencies in private schools. The percentage that made AYP 

will be calculated automatically.

Title I School

[1.4.2.1.x.] # Title I Schools

# Title I Schools that 

Made AYP in 

SY 2013-14

Percentage of Title I 

Schools that Made 

AYP in SY 2013-14

All Title I schools [1.1.] [1.2.] (Auto calculated)

Schoolwide (SWP) 

Title I schools

[2.1.] [2.2.] (Auto calculated)

Targeted 

assistance (TAS) 

Title I schools

[3.1.] [3.2.] (Auto calculated)

For an SEA with an approved ESEA flexibility request that includes the optional 

waiver to not make AYP determinations for LEAs and schools:

In the table below, provide the total number of public Title I schools by type and 

the total number of those schools that made all of their AMOs, the 95 percent 

participation rate, and other academic indicator4based on data for SY 2013-14. 

Include only public Title I schools. Do not include Title I programs operated by 

LEAs in private schools. The percentage will be calculated automatically.

 

4

For a high school, the other academic indicator is always graduation rate.
OMB.wd.3

17

Title I School

# Title I Schools

# Title I Schools that 

Met All AMOs, 95 

Percent Participation 

Rate, and Other 

Academic Indicator in 

SY 2013-14

Percentage of Title I 

Schools that Met All 

AMOs, 95 Percent 

Participation Rate, 

and Other Academic 

Indicator in SY 2013-

14

All Title I schools (Auto calculated)

Schoolwide (SWP) 

Title I schools

(Auto calculated)

Targeted

assistance (TAS) 

Title I schools

(Auto calculated)

1.4.3 Accountability of Districts That Received Title I Funds

For an SEA that has not received ESEA flexibility, or an SEA that received ESEA 

flexibility without the optional waiver to not make AYP determinations for LEAs 

and schools:

In the table below, provide the total number of districts that received Title I funds 

and the total number of those districts that made AYP based on data for 

SY —2013-14. The percentage that made AYP will be calculated automatically.

# Districts That 

Received Title I 

Funds in SY 2013-

14

# Districts That 

Received Title I 

Funds and 

Made AYP in SY 

2013-14

Percentage of Districts That 

Received Title I Funds and 

Made AYP in SY 2013-14

[1.] [2.] (Auto calculated)

For an SEA with an approved ESEA flexibility request that includes the optional 

waiver to not make AYP determinations for LEAs and schools:

In the table below, provide the total number of districts that received Title I funds 

and the total number of those districts that met all of their AMOs, the 95 percent 

participation rate, and other academic indicator5based on data for SY 2013-14. 

The percentage will be calculated automatically.

 

5

For a high school, the other academic indicator is always graduation rate.
OMB.wd.3

18

# Districts That 

Received Title I 

Funds in SY 2013-

14

# Districts That 

Received Title I 

Funds and 

Met All AMOs, 95 

percent Participation 

Rate, and Other 

Academic Indicator in 

SY 2013-14

Percentage of Districts That 

Received Title I Funds and 

Met All AMOs, 95 percent 

Participation Rate, and Other 

Academic Indicator in SY 

2013-14

(Auto calculated)

1.4.4.3 Corrective Action

In the table below, for schools in corrective action, provide the number of schools 

for which the listed corrective actions under ESEA were implemented in 

SY 2013-14 (based on SY 2012-13 assessments under Section 1111 of ESEA). 

Corrective Action

# of Title I Schools in 

Corrective Action in Which 

the Corrective Action was 

Implemented in SY 2013-14

Required implementation of a new research-based 

curriculum or instructional program

Extension of the school year or school day

Replacement of staff members, not including the 

principal, who were relevant to the school’s low 

performance

Significant decrease in management authority at the 

school level

Replacement of the principal

Restructuring the internal organization of the school

Appointment of an outside expert to advise the school

1.4.4.4 Restructuring – Year 2

In the table below, for schools in restructuring – year 2 (implementation year), 

provide the number of schools for which the listed restructuring actions under 

ESEA were implemented in SY 2013-14 (based on SY 2012-13 assessments 

under Section 1111 of ESEA). 

Restructuring Action

# of Title I Schools in 

Restructuring in Which 

Restructuring Action Is 

Being Implemented

Replacement of all or most of the school staff (which may 

include the principal) 
OMB.wd.3

19

Restructuring Action

# of Title I Schools in 

Restructuring in Which 

Restructuring Action Is 

Being Implemented

Reopening the school as a public charter school

Entering into a contract with a private entity to operate the 

school

Takeover of the school by the State

Other major restructuring of the school governance

In the space below, list specifically the “other major restructuring of the school 

governance” action(s) that were implemented.

This response is limited to 8,000 characters.

1.4.5.2 Actions Taken for Districts That Received Title I Funds 

and Were Identified for Improvement

In the space below, briefly describe the measures being taken to address the 

achievement problems of districts identified for improvement or corrective action. 

Include a discussion of the technical assistance provided by the State (e.g., the 

number of districts served, the nature and duration of assistance provided, etc.). 

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.

1.4.5.3 Corrective Action

In the table below, for districts in corrective action, provide the number of districts 

in corrective action in which the listed corrective actions under ESEA were 

implemented in SY 2013-14 (based on SY 2012-13 assessments under Section 

1111 of ESEA).
OMB.wd.3

20

Corrective Action

# of Districts receiving 

Title I funds in Corrective 

Action in Which Corrective 

Action was Implemented in 

SY 2013-14

Implemented a new curriculum based on State 

standards

Authorized students to transfer from district schools to 

higher performing schools in a neighboring district

Deferred programmatic funds or reduced 

administrative funds

Replaced district personnel who are relevant to the 

failure to make AYP

Removed one or more schools from the jurisdiction of 

the district

Appointed a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs 

of the district

Restructured the district

Abolished the district (list the number or districts 

abolished between the end of SY 2012-13 and 

beginning of SY 2013-14 as a corrective action)

1.4.7 Appeal of AYP and Identification Determinations

In the table below, provide the number of districts and schools that appealed their 

AYP designations based on SY 2013-14 data and the results of those appeals.

Entity

# Appealed Their 

AYP Designations

# Appeals Resulted 

in a Change in the 

AYP Designation

Districts

Schools

In the table below, provide the data by which processing appeals based on SY 

2013-14 data was complete.

Processing Appeals completion Date

Date (MM/DD/YY) that processing appeals 

based on SY 2013-14 data was complete

1.4.8 Sections 1003 (a) and (g) School Improvement Funds

In the section below, “schools in improvement” refers to Title I schools identified 

for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Section 1116 of ESEA.
OMB.wd.3

21

1.4.8.5 Use of Sections 1003(a) and (g) School Improvement

Funds

1.4.8.5.1 Section 1003(a) State Reservations 

In the space provided, enter the percentage of the FY 2013 (SY 2013-14) Title I, 

Part A allocation that the SEA reserved in accordance with Section 1003(a) of 

ESEA and §200.100(a) of ED’s regulations governing the reservation of funds for 

school improvement under Section 1003(a) of ESEA: _____%

1.4.8.5.2 Sections 1003(a) and 1003(g) Allocations to LEAs and

Schools

The requested information below for FY 2013 (SY 2013-14) is displayed in the 

EDEN012 report, which is a report in the EDFacts system.

Name of LEA with One 

or More Schools 

Provided Assistance 

through Section 1003(a) 

Funds in SY 2013-14

NCES LEA ID Amount of 

LEA’s 1003(a) 

Allocation

In the tables below, provide the requested information for FY 2011 (SY 2011-12).

Name of LEA with One 

or More Schools 

Provided Assistance 

through Section 1003(g) 

Funds in SY 2013-14

NCES LEA ID Amount of 

LEA’s 1003(g) 

Allocation
OMB.wd.3

22

Name of LEA with One 

or More Schools 

Provided Assistance 

through Section 1003(g) 

Funds in SY 2013-14

NCES LEA ID Amount of 

LEA’s 1003(g) 

Allocation

1.4.8.5.3 Use of Section 1003(g)(8) Funds for Evaluation and

Technical Assistance

Section 1003(g)(8) of ESEA allows States to reserve up to five percent of Section 

1003(g) funds for administration and to meet the evaluation and technical 

assistance requirements for this program. In the space below, identify and 

describe the specific Section 1003(g) evaluation and technical assistance

activities that your State conducted during SY 2013-14.

This response is limited to 8,000 characters.

1.4.8.6 Actions Taken for Title I Schools Identified for 

Improvement Supported by Funds Other than Those of 

Sections 1003(a) and 1003(g)

In the space below, describe actions (if any) taken by your State in SY 2013-14

that were supported by funds other than Sections 1003(a) and 1003(g) funds

to address the achievement problems of schools identified for improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring under Section 1116 of ESEA . 

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
OMB.wd.3

23

1.4.9 Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational 

Services

This section collects data on public school choice and supplemental educational 

services.

1.4.9.1 Public School Choice

This section collects data on public school choice. FAQs related to the public 

school choice provisions are at the end of this section.

1.4.9.1.2 Public School Choice – Students

In the table below, provide the number of students who were eligible for public 

school choice, the number of eligible students who applied to transfer, and the 

number who transferred under the provisions for public school choice under 

Section 1116 of ESEA.

The number of students who were eligible for public school choice should 

include: 

(1) All students currently enrolled in a Title I school identified for improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring. 

(2) All students who transferred in the current school year under the public school 

choice provisions of Section 1116, and

(3) All students who previously transferred under the public school choice 

provisions of Section 1116 and are continuing to transfer for the current school 

year under Section 1116.

The number of students who applied to transfer should include:

(1) All students who applied to transfer in the current school year but did not or 

were unable to transfer.

(2) All students who transferred in the current school year under the public school 

choice provisions of Section 1116; and

(3) All students who previously transferred under the public school choice 

provisions of Section 1116 and are continuing to transfer for the current school 

year under Section 1116.

For any of the respective student counts, States should indicate in the Comment 

section if the count does not include any of the categories of students discussed 

above.

Public School Choice # Students
OMB.wd.3

24

Public School Choice # Students

Eligible for public school choice

Applied to transfer

Transferred to another school under the Title I 

public school choice provisions

1.4.9.1.3 Funds Spent on Public School Choice

In the table below, provide the total dollar amount spent by LEAs on 

transportation for public school choice under Section 1116 of ESEA.

Transportation for Public School Choice Dollars Spent

Dollars spent by LEAs on transportation for public school choice $

1.4.9.1.4 Availability of Public School Choice Options

In the table below provide the number of LEAs in your State that are unable to 

provide public school choice to eligible students due to any of the following 

reasons: 

1. All schools at a grade level in the LEA are in school improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring.

2. LEA only has a single school at the grade level of the school at which 

students are eligible for public school choice.

3. LEA's schools are so remote from one another that choice is 

impracticable.

Unable to Provide Public School Choice # LEAs

LEAs Unable to Provide Public School Choice

FAQs about public school choice:

a. How should States report data on Title I public school choice for those LEAs 

that have open enrollment and other school choice programs? For those 

LEAs that implement open enrollment or other school choice programs in 

addition to public school choice under Section 1116 of ESEA, the State may 

consider a student as having applied to transfer if the student meets the 

following: 

 Has a "home" or "neighborhood" school (to which the student would 

have been assigned, in the absence of a school choice program) that 

receives Title I funds and has been identified, under the statute, as in 

need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; and 
OMB.wd.3

25

 Has elected to enroll, at some point since July 1, 2002 (the effective 

date of the Title I choice provisions), and after the home school has 

been identified as in need of improvement, in a school that has not 

been so identified and is attending that school; and 

 Is using district transportation services to attend such a school.6

In addition, the State may consider costs for transporting a student meeting 

the above conditions towards the funds spent by an LEA on transportation for 

public school choice if the student is using district transportation services to 

attend the non-identified school.7

b. How should States report on public school choice for those LEAs that are not 

able to offer public school choice? In the count of LEAs that are not able to 

offer public school choice (for any of the reasons specified in 1.4.9.1.4), 

States should include those LEAs that are unable to offer public school choice 

at one or more grade levels. For instance, if an LEA is able to provide public 

school choice to eligible students at the elementary level but not at the 

secondary level, the State should include the LEA in the count. States should 

also include LEAs that are not able to provide public school choice at all (i.e., 

at any grade level). States should provide the reason(s) why public school 

choice was not possible in these LEAs at the grade level(s) in the Comment 

section. In addition, States may also include in the Comment section a 

separate count just of LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice at 

any grade level.

For LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice at one or more grade 

levels, States should count as eligible for public school choice (in 1.4.9.1.2) all 

students who attend identified Title I schools regardless of whether the LEA is 

able to offer the students public school choice.

1.4.9.2 Supplemental Educational Services

This section collects data on supplemental educational services.

1.4.9.2.2 Supplemental Educational Services – Students

In the table below, provide the number of students who were eligible for, who 

applied for, and who received supplemental educational services under Section 

1116 of ESEA.

 

7 Adapted from Public School Choice Non-Regulatory Guidance, Available at: 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.doc
OMB.wd.3

26

The number of students who received supplemental educational services should 

include all students who were enrolled with a provider and participated in some 

hours of services. States and LEAs have the discretion to determine the 

minimum number of hours of participation needed by a student to be considered 

as having received services.

Supplemental Educational Services # Students

Eligible for supplemental educational services

Applied for supplemental educational services

Received supplemental educational services

1.4.9.2.3 Funds Spent on Supplemental Educational Services

In the table below, provide the total dollar amount spent by LEAs on 

supplemental educational services under Section 1116 of ESEA.

Spending on Supplemental Educational Services Dollars Spent

Dollars spent by LEAs on supplemental educational services $

1.5 TEACHER QUALITY 

This section collects data on “highly qualified” teachers as the term is defined in 

Section 9101(23) of the ESEA.

1.5.1 Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are 

Highly Qualified 

In the table below, provide the number of core academic classes for the grade 

levels listed, the number of those core academic classes taught by teachers who 

are highly qualified, and the number taught by teachers who are not highly 

qualified. The percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers who are 

highly qualified and the percentage taught by teachers who are not highly 

qualified will be calculated automatically. Below the table are FAQs about these 

data.

Classes

[1.5.1.x.x.]

Number of 

Core 

Academic 

Classes 

(Total)

Number of 

Core 

Academic 

Classes 

Taught by

Teachers

Who Are 

Highly

Qualified 

Percentage 

of Core 

Academic 

Classes 

Taught by

Teachers 

Who Are 

Highly

Qualified 

Number of 

Core 

Academic 

Classes 

Taught by

Teachers 

Who Are 

NOT Highly

Qualified 

Percentage 

of Core 

Academic 

Classes 

Taught by

Teachers 

Who Are 

NOT Highly

Qualified 
OMB.wd.3

27

Classes

[1.5.1.x.x.]

Number of 

Core 

Academic 

Classes 

(Total)

Number of 

Core 

Academic 

Classes 

Taught by

Teachers

Who Are 

Highly

Qualified 

Percentage 

of Core 

Academic 

Classes 

Taught by

Teachers 

Who Are 

Highly

Qualified 

Number of 

Core 

Academic 

Classes 

Taught by

Teachers 

Who Are 

NOT Highly

Qualified 

Percentage 

of Core 

Academic 

Classes 

Taught by

Teachers 

Who Are 

NOT Highly

Qualified 

All classes 

(Auto calculated) (Auto calculated)

All 

elementary 

classes

(Auto calculated) (Auto calculated)

All 

secondary 

classes

(Auto calculated) (Auto calculated)

Do the data in Table 1.5.1 above include classes taught by special education 

teachers who provide direct instruction in core academic subjects?

Data table includes classes taught by special education teachers 

who provide direct instruction in core academic subjects.

Yes No

If the answer above is no, please explain:

Does the State count elementary classes so that a full-day self-contained 

classroom equals one class, or does the State use a departmentalized approach 

where a classroom is counted multiple times, once for each subject taught?

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.

FAQs about highly qualified teachers and core academic subjects:

a. What are the core academic subjects? English, reading/language arts, 

mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, 

economics, arts, history, and geography [Title IX, Section 9101(11)]. While 

the statute includes the arts in the core academic subjects, it does not 
OMB.wd.3

28

specify which of the arts are core academic subjects; therefore, States 

must make this determination.

b. How is a teacher defined? An individual who provides instruction in the 

core academic areas to kindergarten, grades 1 through 12, or ungraded 

classes, or individuals who teach in an environment other than a classroom 

setting (and who maintain daily student attendance records) [from NCES, 

CCD, 2001-02].

c. How is a class defined? A class is a setting in which organized instruction 

of core academic course content is provided to one or more students 

(including cross-age groupings) for a given period of time. (A course may 

be offered to more than one class.) Instruction, provided by one or more 

teachers or other staff members, may be delivered in person or via a 

different medium. Classes that share space should be considered as 

separate classes if they function as separate units for more than 50% of 

the time [from NCES Non-fiscal Data Handbook for Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education, 2003].

d. Should 6th-, 7th-, and 8th-grade classes be reported in the elementary or 

the secondary category? States are responsible for determining whether 

the content taught at the middle school level meets the competency 

requirements for elementary or secondary instruction. Report classes in 

grade 6 through 8 consistent with how teachers have been classified to 

determine their highly qualified status, regardless of whether their schools 

are configured as elementary or middle schools.

e. How should States count teachers (including specialists or resource 

teachers) in elementary classes? States that count self-contained 

classrooms as one class should, to avoid over-representation, also count 

subject-area specialists (e.g., mathematics or music teachers) or resource 

teachers as teaching one class. On the other hand, States using a 

departmentalized approach to instruction where a self-contained classroom 

is counted multiple times (once for each subject taught) should also count 

subject-area specialists or resource teachers as teaching multiple classes.

f. How should States count teachers in self-contained multiple-subject 

secondary classes? Each core academic subject taught for which students 

are receiving credit toward graduation should be counted in the numerator 

and the denominator. For example, if the same teacher teaches English, 

calculus, history, and science in a self-contained classroom, count these as 

four classes in the denominator. If the teacher is Highly Qualified to teach 

English and history, he/she would be counted as Highly Qualified in two of 

the four subjects in the numerator.
OMB.wd.3

29

g. What is the reporting period? The reporting period is the school year. The 

count of classes must include all semesters, quarters, or terms of the 

school year. For example, if core academic classes are held in summer 

sessions, those classes should be included in the count of core academic 

classes. A state determines into which school year classes fall.

1.5.2 Reasons Core Academic Classes Are Taught by

Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified 

In the tables below, estimate the percentages for each of the reasons why 

teachers who are not highly qualified teach core academic classes. For 

example, if 900 elementary classes were taught by teachers who are not highly 

qualified, what percentage of those 900 classes falls into each of the categories 

listed below? If the three reasons provided at each grade level are not sufficient 

to explain why core academic classes at a particular grade level are taught by 

teachers who are not highly qualified, use the row labeled “other” and explain the 

additional reasons. The total of the reasons is calculated automatically for each 

grade level and must equal 100% at the elementary level and 100% at the 

secondary level.

Note: Use the numbers of core academic classes taught by teachers who are 

not highly qualified from 1.5.1 for both elementary school classes (1.5.2.1) and 

for secondary school classes (1.5.2.2) as your starting point.

1.5.2.1 Elementary School Classes

Elementary School Classes Percentage

Elementary school classes taught by certified general education 

teachers who did not pass a subject-knowledge test or (if eligible) 

have not demonstrated subject-matter competency through 

HOUSSE

[1.5.2.1.1.]

Elementary school classes taught by certified special education 

teachers who did not pass a subject-knowledge test or have not 

demonstrated subject-matter competency through HOUSSE

[1.5.2.2.1.]

Elementary school classes taught by teachers who are not fully 

certified (and are not in an approved alternative route program) 1.5.2.3.1.]

Other (please explain in comment box below) [1.5.2.8.1.]

Total ((Auto calculated))

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
OMB.wd.3

30

1.5.2.2 Secondary School Classes

Secondary School Classes

Percentage

Secondary school classes taught by certified general education 

teachers who have not demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in 

those subjects (e.g., out-of-field teachers)

[1.5.2.4.1.]

Secondary school classes taught by certified special education 

teachers who have not demonstrated subject-matter competency 

in those subjects

[1.5.2.5.1.]

Secondary school classes taught by teachers who are not fully 

certified (and are not in an approved alternative route program) [1.5.2.6.1.]

Other (please explain in comment box below) [1.5.2.7.1.]

Total ((Auto calculated))

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.

1.5.3 Poverty Quartiles and Metrics Used

In the table below, provide the number of core academic classes for each of the 

school types listed and the number of those core academic classes taught by 

teachers who are highly qualified. The percentage of core academic classes 

taught by teachers who are highly qualified will be calculated automatically. The 

percentages used for high- and low-poverty schools and the poverty metric used 

to determine those percentages are reported in the second table. Below the 

tables are FAQs about these data. 

NOTE: No source of classroom-level poverty data exists, so States may look at 

school-level data when figuring poverty quartiles. Because not all schools have 
OMB.wd.3

31

traditional grade configurations, and because a school may not be counted as 

both an elementary and as a secondary school, States may include as 

elementary schools all schools that serve children in grades K through 5 

(including K through 8 or K through 12 schools).

This means that for the purpose of establishing poverty quartiles, some classes 

in schools where both elementary and secondary classes are taught would be 

counted as classes in an elementary school rather than as classes in a 

secondary school in 1.5.3. This also means that such a 12th grade class would 

be in a different category in 1.5.3 than it would be in 1.5.1.

School type

[1.5.1.x.x.]

Number of 

Core 

Academic 

Classes 

(Total)

Number of 

Core 

Academic 

Classes 

Taught by

Teachers

Who Are 

Highly

Qualified 

Percentage of Core 

Academic Classes 

Taught by Teachers 

Who Are Highly

Qualified 

Elementary Schools

High-poverty elementary schools (Auto calculated)

Low-poverty elementary schools (Auto calculated)

Secondary Schools

High-poverty secondary schools (Auto calculated)

Low-poverty Secondary schools (Auto calculated)

1.5.3.1 Poverty Quartile Breaks

In the table below, provide the poverty quartiles breaks used in determining highand low-poverty schools and the poverty metric used to determine the poverty 

quartiles. Below the table are FAQs about the data collected in this table.

School Type High-Poverty Schools Low-Poverty Schools

Elementary schools More than _________% 

[1.1.]

Less than __________% 

[1.2.]

Poverty metric used [1.3.]

Secondary schools More than _________% 

[2.1.]

Less than __________% 

[2.2.]

Poverty metric used [2.3.]

FAQs on poverty quartiles and metrics used to determine poverty
OMB.wd.3

32

a. What is a “high-poverty school”? Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) defines “highpoverty” schools as schools in the top quartile of poverty in the State. 

b. What is a “low-poverty school”? Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) defines “lowpoverty” schools as schools in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. 

c. How are the poverty quartiles determined? Separately rank order 

elementary and secondary schools from highest to lowest on your 

percentage poverty measure. Divide the list into four equal groups. Schools 

in the first (highest group) are high-poverty schools. Schools in the last 

group (lowest group) are the low-poverty schools. Generally, States use 

the percentage of students who qualify for the free or reduced-price lunch 

program for this calculation.

d. Since the poverty data are collected at the school and not classroom level, 

how do we classify schools as either elementary or secondary for this 

purpose? States may include as elementary schools all schools that serve 

children in grades K through 5 (including K through 8 or K through 12 

schools) and would therefore include as secondary schools those that 

exclusively serve children in grades 6 and higher.

1.6 TITLE III AND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS

This section collects annual performance and accountability data on the 

implementation of Title III programs. 

1.6.1 Language Instruction Educational Programs 

In the table below, place a check next to each type of language instruction 

educational program implemented in the State, as defined under Section 

3301(8), as required by Sections 3121(a)(1), 3123(b)(1), and 3123(b)(2). 

Table 1.6.1 Definitions:

1. Types of Programs = Types of programs described in the subgrantee’s 

local plan (as submitted to the State or as implemented) that is closest to 

the descriptions 

inhttp://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE021775/Glossary_of_Terms.pdf.

2. Other Language = Name of the language of instruction, other than 

English, used in the programs.

Check 

Types of 

Programs Type of Program Other Language

Dual language
OMB.wd.3

33

Check 

Types of 

Programs Type of Program Other Language

Two-way immersion

Transitional bilingual

Developmental bilingual

Heritage language

Sheltered English instruction /////////////////////////////////////////////

Structured English immersion /////////////////////////////////////////////

Specially designed academic 

instruction delivered in English 

(SDAIE)

/////////////////////////////////////////////

/////////////////////////////////////////////

/////////////////////////////////////////////

Content-based ESL /////////////////////////////////////////////

Pull-out ESL /////////////////////////////////////////////

Other (explain in comment box 

below)

///////////////////////////////////////////

///////////////////////////////////////////

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.

1.6.2 Student Demographic Data

1.6.2.1 Number of ALL LEP Students in the State 

In the table below, provide the unduplicated number of ALL LEP students in the 

State who meet the LEP definition under Section 9101(25). 

 Include newly enrolled (recent arrivals to the U.S.) and continually 

enrolled LEP students, whether or not they receive services in a 

Title III language instruction educational program

 Do not include Former LEP students (as defined in 

Section 200.20(f)(2) of the Title I regulation) and monitored Former 

LEP students (as defined under Section 3121(a)(4) of Title III) in 

the ALL LEP student count in this table.

Number of ALL LEP students in the State
OMB.wd.3

34

1.6.2.2 Number of LEP Students Who Received Title III 

Language Instruction Educational Program Services 

In the table below, provide the unduplicated number of LEP students in the State 

who received services in Title III language instructional education programs.

LEP Students Receiving Services #

LEP students who received services in a Title III language 

instruction educational program in grades K through 12 for this 

reporting year.

1.6.2.3 Most Commonly Spoken Languages in the State 

In the table below, provide the five most commonly spoken languages, other than 

English, in the State (for all LEP students, not just LEP students who received 

Title III services). The top five languages should be determined by the highest 

number of students speaking each of the languages listed.

Language # LEP Students

Report additional languages with significant numbers of LEP students in the 

comment box below.

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.

1.6.3 Student Performance Data

This section collects data on LEP students’ English language proficiency, as 

required by Sections 1111(h)(4)(D) and 3121(a)(2).
OMB.wd.3

35

1.6.3.1.1 ALL LEP Students Tested on the State Annual 

English Language Proficiency Assessment

In the table below, please provide the number of ALL LEP students tested and 

not tested on annual State English language proficiency (ELP) assessment (as 

defined in 1.6.2.1).

All LEP Testing #

Number tested on State annual ELP 

assessment

Number not tested on State annual ELP 

assessment

Total (Auto-calculated)

1.6.3.1.2 ALL LEP Student English Language Proficiency

Results 

All LEP Results #

Number attained proficiency on State 

annual ELP assessment

Percent attained proficiency on State 

annual ELP assessment

(Auto-calculated)

1.6.3.2.1 Title III LEP Students Tested on the State Annual 

English Language Proficiency Assessment 

In the table below, provide the number of Title III LEP students tested and not 

tested on annual State English language proficiency assessment.

Title III LEP Testing #

Number tested on State annual ELP 

assessment

Number not tested on State annual ELP 

assessment

Total (Auto-calculated)

In the table below, provide the number of Title III students who took the State 

annual ELP assessment for the first time and whose progress cannot be 

determined and whose results were not included in the calculation for AMAO1. 

Report this number ONLY if the State did not include these students in 

establishing AMAO1/ making progress target and did not include them in the 

calculations for AMAO1/ making progress (# and % making progress). 

Title III First Time Tested #
OMB.wd.3

36

Title III First Time Tested #

Number of Title III students who took the 

State annual ELP assessment for the first 

time, whose progress cannot be 

determined and whose results were not 

included in the calculation for AMAO 1.

1.6.3.2.2 Title III LEP English Language Proficiency Results 

This section collects information on Title III LEP students’ development of English 

and attainment of English proficiency.

Table 1.6.3.2.2 Definitions:

1. Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) = State 

targets for the number and percent of students making progress and 

attaining proficiency.

2. Making Progress = Number and percent of Title III LEP students that 

met the definition of “Making Progress” as defined by the State and 

submitted to ED in the State Consolidated Application (CSA), or as 

amended. 

3. Attained Proficiency = Number and percent of Title III LEP students 

that meet the State definition of “Attainment” of English language 

proficiency submitted to ED in the State Consolidated Application (CSA), 

or as amended.

4. Results = Number and percent of Title III LEP students that met the 

State definition of “Making Progress” and the number and percent that met 

the State definition of “Attainment” of English language proficiency. 

In the table below, provide the State targets for the number and percent of 

students making progress and attaining English proficiency for this reporting 

period. Additionally, provide the results from the annual State English language 

proficiency assessment for Title III-served LEP students who participated in a 

Title III language instruction educational program in grades K through 12. If your 

State uses cohorts, provide us with the range of targets, (i.e., indicate the lowest 

target among the cohorts, e.g., 10% and the highest target among a cohort, e.g. 

70%).

Title III Results

Results

#

Results

%

Targets

#

Targets

%

Making progress

(Auto 

calculated)
OMB.wd.3

37

Title III Results

Results

#

Results

%

Targets

#

Targets

%

Attained proficiency

(Auto 

calculated)

1.6.3.5 Native Language Assessments

This section collects data on LEP students assessed in their native language 

(Section 1111(b)(6)) to be used for AYP determinations.

1.6.3.5.1 LEP Students Assessed in Native Language 

In the table below, check “yes” if the specified assessment is used for AYP 

purposes.

Native Language Testing Yes No

State offers the State reading/language arts content tests in 

the students’ native language(s). □Yes □ No

State offers the State mathematics content tests in the 

students’ native language(s). □Yes □ No

State offers the State science content tests in the students’ 

native language(s). □Yes □ No

1.6.3.5.2 Native Language of Mathematics Tests Given 

In the table below, report the language(s) in which native language assessments 

are given for ESEA accountability determinations for mathematics.

Language (s) 

1.6.3.5.3 Native Language of Reading/Language Arts Tests Given 

In the table below, report the language(s) in which native language assessments 

are given for ESEA accountability determinations for reading/language arts.

Language (s) 
OMB.wd.3

38

Language (s) 

1.6.3.5.4 Native Language of Science Tests Given 

In the table below, report the language(s) in which native language assessments 

are given for ESEA accountability determinations for science.

Language (s) 

1.6.3.6 Title III Served Monitored Former LEP (MFLEP) Students

This section collects data on the performance of former LEP students as required 

by Sections 3121(a)(4) and 3123(b)(8).

1.6.3.6.1 Title III Served MFLEP Students by Year Monitored 

In the table below, report the unduplicated count of monitored former LEP 

students during the two consecutive years of monitoring, which includes both 

MFLEP students in AYP grades and in non-AYP grades. 

Monitored Former LEP (MFLEP) students include:

 Students who have transitioned out of a language instruction educational 

program.

 Students who are no longer receiving LEP services and who are being 

monitored for academic content achievement for 2 years after the 

transition.

Table 1.6.3.6.1 Definitions:

1. # Year One = Number of former LEP students in their first year of 

being monitored. 

2. # Year Two = Number of former LEP students in their second year of 

being monitored. 

3. Total = Number of monitored former LEP students in year one and 

year two. This is automatically calculated.

# Year One # Year Two Total
OMB.wd.3

39

# Year One # Year Two Total

(Auto calculated)

1.6.3.6.2 MFLEP Students Results for Mathematics 

In the table below, report the number of MFLEP students who took the annual 

mathematics assessment. Please provide data only for those students who 

transitioned out of language instruction educational programs and who no longer 

received services under Title III in this reporting year. These students include 

both students who are monitored former LEP students in their first year of 

monitoring, and those in their second year of monitoring.

Table 1.6.3.6.2 Definitions:

1. # Tested = State-aggregated number of MFLEP students who were 

tested in mathematics in all AYP grades. 

2. # At or Above Proficient = State-aggregated number of MFLEP 

students who scored at or above proficient on the State annual 

mathematics assessment.

3. % Results = Automatically calculated based on number who scored at 

or above proficient divided by the number tested. 

4. # Below proficient = State-aggregated number MFLEP students who 

did not score proficient on the State annual mathematics assessment. 

This will be automatically calculated.

# Tested

# At or Above 

Proficient % Results

# Below 

Proficient

(Auto calculated)

1.6.3.6.3 MFLEP Students Results for Reading/Language Arts

In the table below, report results for MFLEP students who took the annual 

reading/language arts assessment. Please provide data only for those students 

who transitioned out of language instruction educational programs and who no 

longer received services under Title III in this reporting year. These students 

include both students who are monitored former LEP students in their first year of 

monitoring, and those in their second year of monitoring.

Table 1.6.3.6.3 Definitions:

1. # Tested = State-aggregated number of MFLEP students who were 

tested in reading/language arts in all AYP grades. 

2. # At or Above Proficient = State-aggregated number of MFLEP 

students who scored at or above proficient on the State annual 

reading/language arts assessment.
OMB.wd.3

40

3. % Results = Automatically calculated based on number who scored at 

or above proficient divided by the total number tested. This will be 

automatically calculated.

4. # Below proficient = State-aggregated number MFLEP students 

who did not score proficient on the State annual reading/language arts 

assessment. 

# Tested

# At or Above 

Proficient % Results

# Below 

Proficient

(Auto 

calculated)

1.6.3.6.4 MFLEP Students Results for Science

In the table below, report results for monitored former LEP (MFLEP) students 

who took the annual science assessment. Please provide data only for those 

students who transitioned out of language instruction educational programs and 

who no longer received services under Title III in this reporting year. These 

students include both students who are monitored former LEP students in their 

first year of monitoring, and those in their second year of monitoring.

Table 1.6.3.6.4 Definitions:

1. # Tested = State-aggregated number of MFLEP students who were 

tested in science. 

2. # At or Above Proficient = State-aggregated number of MFLEP 

students who scored at or above proficient on the State annual science 

assessment.

3. % Results = Automatically calculated based on number who scored at or 

above proficient divided by the total number tested. This will be 

automatically calculated.

4. # Below proficient = State-aggregated number MFLEP students who did 

not score proficient on the State annual science assessment. 

# Tested

# At or Above 

Proficient % Results

# Below 

Proficient

(Auto 

calculated)

1.6.4 Title III Subgrantees

This section collects data on the performance of Title III subgrantees.
OMB.wd.3

41

1.6.4.1 Title III Subgrantee Performance 

In the table below, report the number of Title III subgrantees meeting the criteria 

described in the table. Do not leave items blank. If there are zero subgrantees 

who met the condition described, put a zero in the number (#) column. Do not

double count subgrantees by category. 

Note: Do not include number of subgrants made under Section 3114(d)(1) from 

funds reserved for education programs and activities for immigrant children and 

youth. (Report Section 3114(d)(1) subgrants in 1.6.5.1 ONLY.)

Title III Subgrantees #

Total number of subgrantees for the year

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Number of subgrantees that met all three Title III AMAOs

Number of subgrantees that met AMAO 1

Number of subgrantees that met AMAO 2

Number of subgrantees that met AMAO 3

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Number of subgrantees that did not meet any Title III AMAOs

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Number of subgrantees that did not meet Title III AMAOs for two consecutive years 

(SYs 2012-13 and 2013-14)

Number of subgrantees implementing an improvement plan in SY 2013-14 for not 

meeting Title III AMAOs for two consecutive years

Number of subgrantees that have not met Title III AMAOs for four consecutive years 

(SYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14)

Provide information on how the State counted consortia members in the total 

number of subgrantees and in each of the numbers in table 1.6.4.1.

The response is limited to 4,000 characters.

1.6.4.2 State Accountability 

In the table below, indicate whether the State met all three Title III AMAOs. 

Note: Meeting all three Title III AMAOs means meeting each State-set target for 

each objective: Making Progress, Attaining Proficiency, and Making AYP for the 

LEP subgroup. 

State Accountability Yes No
OMB.wd.3

42

State Accountability Yes No

State met all three Title III AMAOs □ Yes □ No

1.6.4.3 Termination of Title III Language Instruction 

Educational Programs 

This section collects data on the termination of Title III programs or activities as 

required by Section 3123(b)(7).

Termination of Title III Programs Yes No

Were any Title III language instruction educational programs or activities 

terminated for failure to reach program goals? □Yes □ No

If yes, provide the number of language instruction educational programs or

activities for immigrant children and youth terminated.

1.6.5 Education Programs and Activities for Immigrant Students 

This section collects data on education programs and activities for immigrant 

students.

Note: All immigrant students are not LEP students.

1.6.5.1 Immigrant Students 

In the table below, report the unduplicated number of immigrant students enrolled 

in schools in the State and who participated in qualifying educational programs 

under Section 3114(d)(1).

Table 1.6.5.1 Definitions:

1. Immigrant Students Enrolled = Number of students who meet the 

definition of immigrant children and youth under Section 3301(6) and 

enrolled in the elementary or secondary schools in the State.

2. Students in 3114(d)(1) Program = Number of immigrant students who 

participated in programs for immigrant children and youth funded under 

Section 3114(d)(1), using the funds reserved for immigrant education 

programs/activities. This number should not include immigrant 

students who receive services only in Title III language instructional 

educational programs under Sections 3114(a) and 3115(a).

3. 3114(d)(1) Subgrants = Number of subgrants made in the State under 

Section 3114(d)(1), with funds reserved for immigrant education 

programs/activities. Do not include Title III Language Instruction 
OMB.wd.3

43

Educational Program (LIEP) subgrants made under Sections 3114(a) 

and 3115(a) that serve immigrant students enrolled in them.

# Immigrant 

Students Enrolled

# Students in 

3114(d)(1) Program

# of 3114(d)(1) 

Subgrants

If State reports zero (0) students in programs or zero (0) subgrants, explain in 

comment box below.

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.

1.6.6 Teacher Information and Professional Development

This section collects data on teachers in Title III language instruction education 

programs as required under Section 3123(b)(5).

1.6.6.1 Teacher Information 

This section collects information about teachers as required under Section 3123 

(b)(5). 

In the table below, report the number of teachers who are working in the Title III 

language instruction educational programs as defined under Section 3301(8) and 

reported in 1.6.1 (Types of language instruction educational programs) even if 

they are not paid with Title III funds.

Note: Section 3301(8) – The term ‘Language instruction educational program’ 

means an instruction course – (A) in which a limited English proficient child is 

placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency, while 

meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement 

standards, as required by Section 1111(b)(1); 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 as a second language.

Title III Teachers #

Number of all certified/licensed teachers currently working in Title III 

language instruction educational programs. 

Estimate number of additional certified/licensed teachers that will be 

needed for Title III language instruction educational programs in the 
OMB.wd.3

44

Title III Teachers #

next 5 years*.

Explain in the comment box below if there is a zero for any item in the table 

above. 

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.

*This number should be the total additional teachers needed for the next 5 years, 

not the number needed for each year. Do not include the number of teachers 

currently working in Title III English language instruction educational programs.

1.6.6.2 Professional Development Activities of Subgrantees 

Related to the Teaching and Learning of LEP Students 

In the tables below, provide information about the subgrantee professional 

development activities that meets the requirements of Section 3115(c)(2).

Table 1.6.6.2 Definitions:

1. Professional Development Topics: Subgrantee professional 

development topics required under Title III.

2. #Subgrantees = Number of subgrantees who conducted each type of 

professional development activity. A subgrantee may conduct more 

than one professional development activity. (Use the same method of 

counting subgrantees, including consortia, as in 1.6.1 and 1.6.4.1.)

3. Total Number of Participants = Number of teachers, administrators 

and other personnel who participated in each type of the professional

development activities reported.

4. Total = Number of all participants in professional development (PD) 

activities.

Professional Development (PD) Topics # Subgrantees

Instructional strategies for LEP students

Understanding and implementation of assessment of 

LEP students

Understanding and implementation of ELP standards 

and academic content standards for LEP students

Alignment of the curriculum in language instruction 

educational programs to ELP standards

Subject matter knowledge for teachers

Other (Explain in comment box)
OMB.wd.3

45

Provide information on PD participants.

PD Participant Information # Subgrantees # Participants

PD provided to content classroom teachers

PD provided to LEP classroom teachers 

PD provided to principals 

PD provided to administrators/other than principals 

PD provided to other school personnel/nonadministrative 

PD provided to community-based organization personnel 

Total //////////////////////////////////////// (Auto calculated)

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.

1.6.7 State Subgrant Activities 

This section collects data on State grant activities.

1.6.7.1 State Subgrant Process

In the table below, report the time between when the State receives the Title III 

allocation from ED, normally on July 1 of each year for the upcoming school year, 

and the time when the State distributes these funds to subgrantees for the 

intended school year. Dates must be submitted using the MM/DD/YY format.

Table 1.6.7.1 Definitions:

1. Date State Received Allocation = Annual date the State receives the 

Title III allocation from U.S. Department of Education (ED).

2. Date Funds Available to Subgrantees = Annual date that Title III 

funds are available to approved subgrantees. 

3. # of Days/$$ Distribution = Average number of days for States 

receiving Title III funds to make subgrants to subgrantees beginning 

from July 1 of each year, except under conditions where funds are 

being withheld.

Example: State received SY 2013-14 funds July 1, 2013, and then made these 

funds available to subgrantees on August 1, 2013, for SY 2013-14 programs. 

Then the “# of days/$$ Distribution” is 30 days.
OMB.wd.3

46

Date State Received 

Allocation

Date Funds Available to 

Subgrantees

# of Days/$$ 

Distribution

1.6.7.2 Steps To Shorten the Distribution of Title III Funds to 

Subgrantees

In the comment box below, describe how your State can shorten the process of 

distributing Title III funds to subgrantees.

The response is limited to 8,000 characters.

1.7 PERSISTENTLY DANGEROUS SCHOOLS 

In the table below, provide the number of schools identified as persistently 

dangerous, as determined by the State, by the start of the school year. For 

further guidance on persistently dangerous schools, refer to Section B 

“Identifying Persistently Dangerous Schools” in the Unsafe School Choice Option 

Non-Regulatory Guidance, available at: 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/unsafeschoolchoice.pdf.

Persistently Dangerous Schools ########

Persistently Dangerous Schools

1.9 EDUCATION FOR HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTHS 

PROGRAM 

This section collects data on homeless children and youth and the McKinneyVento grant program.

In the table below, provide the following information about the number of LEAs in 

the State who reported data on homeless children and youth and the McKinneyVento program. The totals will be automatically calculated.

LEAs # # LEAs Reporting Data

LEAs without subgrants

LEAs with subgrants

Total (Auto calculated) (Auto calculated)
OMB.wd.3

47

1.9.1 All LEAs (with and without McKinney-Vento subgrants)

The following questions collect data on homeless children and youth in the State.

1.9.1.1 Homeless Children and Youth

In the table below, provide the number of homeless children and youth by grade 

level enrolled in public school at any time during the regular school year. The 

totals will be automatically calculated:

Age/Grade

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth Enrolled in 

Public School in LEAs 

Without Subgrants

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth Enrolled in 

Public School in LEAs With

Subgrants

Age 3 through 5 

(not 

Kindergarten)

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Ungraded

Total (Auto calculated) (Auto calculated)

1.9.1.2 Primary Nighttime Residence of Homeless Children and 

Youth

In the table below, provide the number of homeless children and youth by 

primary nighttime residence enrolled in public school at any time during the 

regular school year. The primary nighttime residence should be the student’s 

nighttime residence when he/she was identified as homeless. The totals will be 

automatically calculated.

Primary Nighttime Residence

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth - LEAs 

Without Subgrants

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth - LEAs 

With Subgrants

Shelters, transitional housing, 
OMB.wd.3

48

Primary Nighttime Residence

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth - LEAs 

Without Subgrants

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth - LEAs 

With Subgrants

awaiting foster care

Doubled-up (e.g., living with 

another family)

Unsheltered (e.g., cars, parks, 

campgrounds, temporary trailer, or 

abandoned buildings)

Hotels/Motels

Total (Auto calculated) (Auto calculated)

1.9.1.3 Subgroups of Homeless Students Enrolled

In the table below, please provide the following information about the homeless 

students enrolled during the regular school year.

Special Population

# Homeless 

Children/Youth -

LEAs Without

Subgrants

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth - LEAs 

With Subgrants

Unaccompanied homeless youth 

Migratory children/youth 

Children with disabilities (IDEA)

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

students

1.9.2 LEAs with McKinney-Vento Subgrants

The following sections collect data on LEAs with McKinney-Vento subgrants.

1.9.2.1 Homeless Children and Youth Served by McKinneyVento Subgrants

In the table below, provide the number of homeless children and youth by grade 

level who were served by McKinney-Vento subgrants during the regular school 

year. The total will be automatically calculated.

Age/Grade

# Homeless Children/Youth Served by

Subgrants

Age Birth Through 2

Age 3 through 5 (not 

Kindergarten)

K

1

2
OMB.wd.3

49

Age/Grade

# Homeless Children/Youth Served by

Subgrants

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Ungraded

Total (Auto calculated)

1.9.2.2 Subgroups of Homeless Students Served

In the table below, please provide the following information about the homeless 

students served during the regular school year.

Subgroup # Homeless Students Served

Unaccompanied homeless youth 

Migratory children/youth 

Children with disabilities (IDEA)

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

students

1.9.3 Academic Achievement of Homeless Students

The following questions collect data on the academic achievement of enrolled 

homeless children and youth. 

1.9.3.1 Reading Assessment

In the table below, provide the number of enrolled homeless children and youth 

who were tested on the State reading/language arts assessment and the number 

of those tested who scored at or above proficient. Provide data for grades 9 

through 12 only for those grades tested for ESEA.
OMB.wd.3

50

Tested

Grade

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth

- LEAs Without

Subgrants

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth

- LEAs Without

Subgrants

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth

- LEAs With

Subgrants

# of Homeless 

Children/Youth

s - LEAs With

Subgrants

Grade

# Homeless 

Children/Youth 

Who Received a 

Valid Score and 

for Whom a 

Proficiency

Level Was 

Assigned

# Homeless 

Children/Youth 

Scoring at or 

above 

Proficient

# Homeless 

Children/Youth 

Who Received a 

Valid Score and 

for Whom a 

Proficiency

Level Was 

Assigned

# Homeless 

Children/Youth 

Scoring at or 

above 

Proficient

3

4

5

6

7

8

High 

School

1.9.3.2 Mathematics Assessment

This section is similar to 1.9.3.1. The only difference is that this section collects 

data on the State mathematics assessment. 

1.9.3.3 Science Assessment

This section is similar to 1.9.3.1. The only difference is that this section collects 

data on the State science assessment. 

 

i

SEC.9303. Consolidated Reporting – (a) In general: In order to simplify reporting requirements and 

reduce reporting burdens, the Secretary shall establish procedures and criteria under which a State 

educational agency, in consultation with the Governor of the State, may submit a consolidated State annual 

report. (b) Contents: The report shall contain information about the programs included in the report, 

including the performance of the State under those programs, and other matters as the Secretary determines 

are necessary, such as monitoring activities. (c) Replacement: The report shall replace separate individual 

annual reports for the programs included in the consolidated State annual report.