Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Pages 5-20
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 5... ...
The objective criteria cover demographics, background, and ability to meet the state's proficient level of achievement on state assessments; the subjective criteria cover perceived difficulties in sufficient command of the English language to be successful in classrooms in which the instructional language 1 In this report, the committee uses both ELL and LEP students to describe the population of interest. The committee favors the term ELL as more descriptive of the population and the challenges that the population faces, but it recognizes that LEP is defined and used in the ESEA legislation and for Title III reporting purposes.
|
From page 6... ...
As discussed below and in Chapter 2 in more depth, this complex definition poses significant problems in measuring the population. The goals set by the NCLB were designed to ensure that LEP students and immigrant children and youths attain English language proficiency (ELP)
|
From page 7... ...
State data show that the percentage of LEP students who score proficient on a state's language arts and math ematics tests was lower than the state's annual progress goals in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2006a, p.
|
From page 8... ...
ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR TITLE III PROGRAMS NCLB changed the way in which ELL programs are funded in a very significant and fundamental way. Prior to the Title III amendment, the federal government provided funds for specific projects and services by local educational agencies, but since the implementation of this legislation the funds have been distributed to the state education agencies through a formula grant mechanism.
|
From page 9... ...
Allowable Data Sources The Title III legislative mandate left it to the DoEd to determine the source of information to be used to determine the number of LEP and immigrant students to be used in the allocation formula, but it stipulated only two allowable data sources: (1) estimates of the population to be served from the U.S.
|
From page 10... ...
" Four choices are given for the second question: "Very well," Well," "Not well," and "Not at all." The LEP estimates that are reported to 4 Before2005, the LEP estimates were based on similar questions in the 2000 census long-form sample, and the immigrant estimates were based on state counts of recent immigrant students enrolled in grades K-12 in public and private schools.
|
From page 11... ...
.5 A summary of these variables as used in the legislative mandate, the current ACS data for allocation purposes, the state counts, and the ACS data used in this report for comparisons with the state data are shown in Table 1-1. For the immigrant component, two other ACS questions are used: "Where was household member X born?
|
From page 12... ...
may bias reporting of the English speaking ability for children and youth or of the reporting of year of immigration. Household responses may also differ from results that would be obtained in other ways -- for example, from state tests or records -- in ways that could bias the ACS estimates.
|
From page 13... ...
educational system's tradition of state and local control of education, including authority for determining the state's definition of LEP, the criteria used to classify students as LEP or not LEP, the test or tests used to assess English language proficiency, and the criteria that the state uses to determine when LEP students are deemed ready to exit LEP status. There are many sources of differences.
|
From page 14... ...
. The GAO report did document some of these problems with the state data, which seemed to be related to federal requests for the number of LEP students assessed for English proficiency each year.
|
From page 15... ...
THIS STUDY AND THIS REPORT Against this backdrop, the DoEd asked the National Research Council's Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and Assessment to convene a group of experts to review and make recommendations regarding the two allowable data sources to use for future Title III formula allocations, for both LEP and recent immigrant students. In evaluating the two sources, the Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was asked to review alternative data sources for use in formula grants to states to ensure that limited English proficiency (LEP)
|
From page 16... ...
With regard to precision, the panel analyzed the effects on the use of the ACS estimates for allocation purposes by combining estimates across more than 1 year in order to reduce sampling error. With regard to nonsampling error, the panel used the ACS public-use microdata sample files to evaluate patterns of nonresponse and imputa tion to the English speaking questions.
|
From page 17... ...
Moreover, the panel's review of the ELP tests extended beyond the yes-no question of whether state assessments of LEP students have become sufficiently standardized to justify their consideration for Title III allocations. The panel gathered more in-depth in formation on the ELP assessments in several states in order to provide the basis for findings and recommendations about ways in which the tests could affect the relative counts of ELL students in the states.
|
From page 18... ...
A measure based on the ACS definition implicitly assumes that, at some level of reported English speaking ability, a student will encounter difficulty in meeting the state's proficient level of achievement on state assessments including the English lan guage arts assessment and assessments of reading, mathematics, and science, or have difficulty learning content in English, or have difficulty participating fully in society. A definition based on state administrative records would not be similarly encumbered with the need to make assumptions about the relationship between re ported English speaking ability and the ability to be proficient and to be successful in learning content in English in the classroom.
|
From page 19... ...
Thus, for purposes of this report, the definition that has been selected for the analysis is the definition used in collecting operational data from state agencies, which are the data as reported in the Consolidated State Performance Reports as Code 1.6.2.1: the unduplicated number of limited English proficient students enrolled in an elementary or secondary school at any time during TABLE 1-2 Operational Definitions of the ELL Population Definition Purpose How Measured The number of students with ESEA allowable data for States develop assessment limited English proficiency in Title III allocation instruments and practices, with grades K-12 who are assessed data collected by state education for English proficiency agencies. The number of students State standards for States use various methods of identified as limited English identification of the population identifying the population, proficiency in grades K-12 needing services including home language surveys or teacher observation reports, which are administered by local education agencies with data collected by state agencies.
|
From page 20... ...
Chapter 4 focuses on state policies and procedures for initially identifying ELL students, measuring their progress in becoming English proficient, and determin ing when they are ready to be reclassified as former ELL students (and exited from programs for English as a second language)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.