Body
The federal government, through both Title III and Title I, has paid attention to the academic needs of non-English speaking students. States have worked hard to comply with federal goals and have developed English language proficiency (ELP) standards, assessments, and accountability. The states have been collaborating to create better products such that 19 states have the same ELP standards and assessments.
The following is a brief summary of efforts to improve education for all EL students as reported by the American Institutes of Research, commissioned by the Department of Education.
Public schools in all 50 states and the District of Columbia have ELs enrolled in their schools. Recently states that had previously had only small number of ELs, have watched their numbers increase dramatically. Many states have also experienced rapidly growing numbers of ELs that are attending secondary school. The diversity of the EL population is great, and the students are not only dealing with learning a new language, and learning the subjects, but also dealing with the factors of poverty.
Title III, in collaboration with Title I, has focused on improving proficiency levels of English Learners (ELs). All states have developed English Language Proficiency (ELP), EP assessments and accountability measures. Many states have collaborated to create the standards, assessments, and accountability measures. State personnel have stressed that there needs to be better coordination between Title I and Title III. Determining the progress of the EL subgroup is made more difficult since students who achieve proficiency move out of the subgroup and are replaced with non-proficient students.
What are the major provisions of Title III in conjunction with Title I subgroup accountability?
- Title I requires that states develop and implement academic standards, aligned assessments, and AYP targets in reading/language arts and mathematics. ELs are to be included in these state assessments and in the ‘all students’ category for evaluating school and district attainment of AYP targets.
- In addition, under Title I, schools and districts with sufficiently large EL populations are held accountable for ensuring that the EL subgroup meets AYP targets.
- For Title III, district and state progress is evaluated against annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs), and all districts receiving Title III funds are to be held accountable for meeting state-established AMAO targets each year.
How are ELs identified and redesignated?
- While states use multiple tools for identifying ELs, placing them in appropriate language instructional programs, and redesignating them as English proficient, state ELP or other English proficiency tests are the primary measures used for these purposes across all states.
The EL subgroup is unique in that higher-performing students (i.e., those who attain proficiency) systematically move out of the subgroup to be replaced by students with lower levels of proficiency (e.g., new immigrants). This pattern creates complications for subgroup accountability as measured by Title I and Title III.
How have states implemented English Language Proficiency standards?
- All states had implemented ELP standards by the 2006-07 school year, with the majority implementing their current standards after the 2003-04 school year.
How have states implemented the assessment provisions for ELs?
- All states and the District of Columbia had implemented ELP assessments by 2007-08 (with 45 states and the District of Columbia implementing their assessments during or after 2004-05), and almost half of the states developed their ELP assessments in collaboration with a multistate consortium.
How are ELs assessed in academic content?
- By the 2007-08 school year, all but five states had achieved the 95 percent participation of ELs in state assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics required to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets for participation. All but one state assessed at least 95 percent of ELs in mathematics.
How does Title III accountability work?
States must report the progress of their ELs in learning English, as defined by the state’s ELP standards and measured by the state’s ELP assessment. Progress is to be reported relative to the state’s AMAOs, which include three criteria:
- Annual increase in the number of percentage of students making progress in learning English (AMAO 1)
- Annual increases in the number of percentage of students attaining English proficiency (AMAO 2)
- Making adequate yearly progress (AYP) for limited English proficient children as described in Title I
How did states develop AMAO targets?
By the winter of 2006-07, only 12 state directors reported that their states had finalized their AMAO targets. Over half of states and the District of Columbia were in the process of revising their AMAOs at that time, and a full 37 states anticipated amending them at some point in the future.
What happens when districts miss their AMAO targets?
- In the 2006-07 school year, 30 states were applying accountability actions to districts that had not met their AMAO targets for consecutive years. However, due to delays in the development of ELP standards, assessments and AMAOs, some states refrained from imposing consequences.
- States varied in their approach to accountability for districts participating in consortia for Title III funding.
What lessons have emerged from states’ implementation of Title III?
- Including ELs in the accountability system helps to focus attention on this growing and historically underserved population.
- Addressing both language and content learning is a more comprehensive approach to serving ELs but requires coordination between Title I and Title III programs.
- The use of shared ELP standards across such a large number of states demonstrates that states can agree on common standards and assessments.
- Recognizing and responding adequately to the diversity of the EL population is challenging in terms of instructional programming and accountability.
- State respondents noted both the value of additional resources to implement language instructional programs and the woeful inadequacy of funding levels in Title III to meet the needs of districts and states.
