Non-Regulatory Guidance: English Learners and Title III of the

Non-Regulatory Guidance: English Learners

and Title III of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

September 23, 2016

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

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

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

document is unaffected by that resolution and remains applicable.

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K-English learners with disabilities ............................................................................................................ 40

Appendix A: Glossary ................................................................................................................................. 43

Appendix B: Resources by Topic Area ....................................................................................................... 45

Purpose

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

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

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

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-07.pdf

. Significant guidance is non-

binding and does not create or impose new legal requirements.

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

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

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

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

other relevant laws and regulations.

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

2008

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

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

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

OESEGuidanceDocum[email protected]ov

or write to us at the following address:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20202

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

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

Introduction & Executive Summary

In the last several decades, English learners (ELs)

have been among the fastest-growing

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

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

even higher percentage of the student population.

ELs also comprise a highly diverse group of

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

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

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

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

students.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

non-EL peers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I pertaining to ELs.

As States and LEAs begin to implement these changes to the ESEA, we

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EEOA), and other requirements, including those under State or local laws.

This guidance does

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

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

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

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

addressed through rulemaking.

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

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

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

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

ELs

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

Columbia: School year 2013–14. Retrieved from:

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2013-14.asp

Title III includes two types of subgrants to LEAs: EL formula subgrants (See ESEA section 3111 and 3114(a))

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

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

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

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

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

that prohibit discrimination on these bases.

Please also see the 2016 policy issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department

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

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

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

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

outreach. In general, existing Departmental guidance

on ELs and Title III is applicable through

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Appendices of this guidance for a glossary and resources.

A-Fiscal Issues

General

A-1. Several provisions in the ESEA

regarding ELs have moved from Title III to Title I.

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

monitoring an LEA’s use of Title III funds?

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

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

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

76.783 for general State administrative responsibilities.

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

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

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

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

LEA subgrantees. (ESEA Section 8201(b)(2)(I)).

State Educational Agency (SEA) Title I staff

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

State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout this document, unless otherwise indicated, citations to the ESEA refer to the ESEA, as amended by the

ESSA.

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

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

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

Supplement-not-Supplant

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

Title I also apply to Title III funds?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

in Lau v. Nichols;

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

programs for EL students;

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

curricular and extracurricular activities;

• Avoid unnecessary segregation of EL students;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress with respect to acquiring English proficiency and grade level content

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

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

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

remedied;

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

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

reasonably calculated

to allow EL students to attain parity of participation in the

standard instructional program within a reasonable period of time; and

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations on promising practices to ensure that language instruction educational

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

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

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

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

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

from Title III to Title I?

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

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

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

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

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

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

high-quality services for these students.

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

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

effectively the educational theory adopted by the school.

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

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

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

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

(CFR) Parts 200 and 225);

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

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

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

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

Section 3115(c)).

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

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

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

• Alignment of English language proficiency assessments to English language proficiency

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

proficiency goals and indicators for accountability purposes (ESEA Sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

1112(e)(3));

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

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

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

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

moved from Title III to Title I?

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

although an LEA must ensure that it provides Title I schools with sufficient funds from non-

Federal sources to provide services that are required by law for ELs before using Title I funds in

the school. (See ESEA Sections 1114(a)(2)(B), 1118(b)).

Although Title I funds may not be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proficiency assessments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

alternate English language proficiency assessment for certain English learners with disabilities

who cannot take the regular English language proficiency assessment even with

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

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

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

Part B.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

supplanting.

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

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

English language proficiency assessment with English language proficiency standards, although

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

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

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

proficiency assessments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would violate the supplement-not-supplant provision in ESEA Section 3115(g) (See questions A-

2 and A-3 above for more information).

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

to identify ELs?

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

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

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

home language survey, or other related tools.

State and District Administrative Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

standardized Statewide entrance and exit procedures for ELs required under ESEA

Section 3113(b)(2); and

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

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

3111(b)(2)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for classification of direct versus indirect costs.

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

administrative costs?

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

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

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

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

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

versus indirect costs.

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

schoolwide program under Title I?

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

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

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

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

Federal program from which it consolidates funds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ELs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subgrants to LEAs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

funds to LEAs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

availability of the funds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

place in various States include:

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

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

consortium.

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

of the member LEAs.

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

LEA based on the number of ELs in each LEA.

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

immigrant subgrants?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

become available.

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

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

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

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

III subgrants?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESSA.

Local Uses of Funds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

education.

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

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

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

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

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

under Title VI and the EEOA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and has been proven successful.

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

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

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

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

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

postsecondary courses and earn postsecondary credit that –

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

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

described in the Higher Education Act of 1965.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

concurrent enrollment program with Title III funds?

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

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

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

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

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

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

1111(d)(1) of the ESEA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

violate the supplement-not-supplant provision.

As another example, it may be appropriate for

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

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

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

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

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

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

B-English Language Proficiency Standards

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

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

English language proficiency standards that:

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

writing;

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

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

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

Title III of the ESEA prior to the ESSA amendments.

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

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

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

funded from Title III.

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

passage of the ESSA?

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

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

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

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

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

academic content standards.

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

enrolls ELs in the State?

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

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

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

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

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

State’s English language proficiency standards.”

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

academic standards?

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

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

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

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

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

3113(b)(2)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the content area standards.

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

standards in reading/language arts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

specific academic content area of reading/language arts.

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

content assessment in reading/language arts?

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

proficiency in the English language. English language proficiency assessments measure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proficiency standards also be aligned with those academic standards?

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

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

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

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

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

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

English language proficiency standards to the social studies standards.

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

the State English language proficiency assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C-Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEP)

C-1. What are the requirements for LIEPs?

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

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

Specifically, for States:

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

and implementing effective language instruction educational programs and curricula for

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

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

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

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

Similarly, an LEA must:

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

(ESEA Section 3115(a));

o Increase the English proficiency of ELs by providing effective language

instruction educational programs that meet the needs of ELs and demonstrate

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

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

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

language instruction educational programs that assist English learners in meeting

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

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

programs and activities that will be provided, including language instruction

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

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

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

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

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

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

obligation.

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

Emphasis added in each bullet that follows.

As noted in A-2, under Title VI and the EEOA, LEAs must provide ELs with a language assistance program that

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

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

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

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

progress of ELs in meeting—

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

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

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

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

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

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

to provide these types of financial awards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

demonstrably result in improved English language proficiency and academic achievement for

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

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

whether the LIEP is:

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

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

continuous improvement;

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

broad range of stakeholders and examination of relevant data;

• Based on rigorous, relevant research

on what instructional approaches are proven

effective for promoting English language proficiency and high academic achievement

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

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

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

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

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

responsibilities for people involved; and implementation timelines;

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

make changes to improve LIEP implementation and effectiveness; and

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

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

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

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

language proficiency standards and its academic content standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

that already satisfies these civil rights obligations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

toolkit/eltoolkit.pdf.

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

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

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

development, including fostering bilingualism, maintaining cultural connections and

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

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

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

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

outcomes for native English speakers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

effective.

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

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

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

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

decision-making

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

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

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

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

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

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

3116)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the program. (ESEA Sections 8501-8504).

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

about evidence-based decision-making, available at

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

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

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

EL Program,” pp. 35-37.

New or changed requirements that affect the equitable participation of private school teachers and other

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

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

March 2009) will remain applicable.

D-Educators of English Learners

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

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

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

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

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

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

challenging State academic standards; and

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

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

that--

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

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

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

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

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

plans;

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

identified in observation or other feedback;

(iv) improve classroom management skills;

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

teachers who became certified through State and local alternative routes to

certification;

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

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

substantially increasing the knowledge and teaching skills of teachers;

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

educational agency;

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

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

schools to be served under this Act;

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

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

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

use of curricula and assessments;

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

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

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

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

which the teachers teach;

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

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

evaluations used to improve the quality of professional development;

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

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

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

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

of accommodations;

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

classroom practice;

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

specialized instructional support personnel, and school administrators may work more

effectively with parents and families;

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

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

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

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

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

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

faculty of such institutions;

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

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

education necessary for those paraprofessionals to become certified and licensed

teachers;

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

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

learned by the teachers are implemented in the classroom; and

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

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

issues related to school readiness.

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

teachers of ELs?

The ESSA makes several important changes pertaining to preparation and professional

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

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

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

ESEA provides that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and principals of ELs that is:

o Designed to improve the instruction and assessment of ELs;

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

implement curricula, assessment measures and practices, and instructional

strategies for ELs;

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

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

of teachers of ELs; and

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

teachers’ performance in the classroom. This does not include one-day or short-

term events, unless as part of a teacher’s comprehensive professional

development plan that is based on a needs assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

language assistance program.

The supplement-not-supplant provision in Title III prohibits the

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

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

obligations.

Emphasis added in each bullet that follows.

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

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

teachers and other staff who teach ELs?

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

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

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

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

personnel and resources necessary to effectively implement their chosen language assistance

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

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

for personnel serving English learners with disabilities.

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

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

effective preparation and professional development?

Preparation and professional development programs and activities for teachers and school

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

Section 3115(c)(2)).

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

effectiveness is strongly correlated with student success.

In order to promote positive

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

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

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

improve students’ academic achievement. Preparation and professional development programs

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

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

Education Investments Non-Regulatory Guidance available at

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

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

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

outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Working Paper 15816.

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

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

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

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

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

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

of ELs.

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

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

effective?

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

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

ensure that all preparation and professional development activities meet the statutory

requirements under the ESEA and demonstrate effectiveness with regards to language

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

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

A guidance.

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

development and preparation funded under Title III?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

education teachers.

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

supplement-not-supplant requirement in Title III?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E-Parent, Family, & Community Engagement

E-1. What are the requirements in the ESEA for parent,

family, and community

engagement with regard to ELs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3115(c)(3)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

parents.

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

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

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

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

obligations under Title VI and the EEOA. Title III funds may be used to supplement an LEA’s

activities if the LEA is already meeting its obligation to ensure meaningful communication with

LEP parents in a language they can understand.

E-2. For purposes of outreach to families of ELs, how are “families” defined in the ESEA?

The ESEA does not define the term “families.” Families may include relatives involved in the

social, emotional, and academic support of the student and expand beyond parents and guardians

to include siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and others. As such, States, LEAs, and

schools looking to involve and support families should be responsive to their students’ diverse

family structures. For an EL or immigrant student, extended family members may have a

The ESEA definition of “parent” in section 8101(38) includes parents, legal guardians, and other individuals who

are standing in loco parentis, such as a grandparent or stepparent with whom the child lives, or a person who is

legally responsible for the child’s welfare.

Please see Section II.J., “Ensuring Meaningful Communication with Limited English Proficient Parents,” in the

Dear Colleague Letter referenced in question A-3.

powerful impact on the student’s academic success. In many cultures, grandparents in particular

play a pivotal role in guiding and shaping household values. Providing outreach to those

relatives, including through information about school programs and student progress, as well as

opportunities for meaningful involvement, such as participation in school functions like family

literacy nights and other such events, can have a positive impact on student learning. It is also

important to consider the family situation of foster youth, unaccompanied children, and others

whose “family” network may extend beyond biological relatives.

E-3. For purposes of outreach to an EL student’s community, how is “community” defined

in the ESEA?

The ESEA does not define the term “community.” A community may include the local and

extended network of organizations that exist to support the student and his or her family. These

communities can include private, non-profit, for-profit, or faith-based organizations. A school

and LEA should make an effort to familiarize themselves with the various community

organizations that support the students and families in their area. Knowing the churches,

synagogues, mosques or other faith-based communities to which families belong can provide

avenues for communicating about school events, including important dates, like back to school

night or kindergarten enrollment. Non-profit organizations such as cultural centers, heritage

language schools and mutual assistance associations in the local community often provide

valuable educational services outside of school hours, such as tutoring and mentoring. Sharing

information about students’ needs and progress, with parental consent, can align those

organizations’ efforts with the school’s efforts and magnify the positive impact.

E-4. What parent and family engagement activities may be conducted using Title III

funds?

A State may use its State-level activity funds to strengthen and increase parent, family, and

community engagement in programs that serve ELs. (ESEA Section 3111(b)(2)(D)(iv)). An

LEA, in addition to using funds for each of the parent, family, and community engagement

activities described in question E-1 above, may also use its subgrant—

o To coordinate and align related programs for ELs, which may include programs

for parents and families of ELs. (ESEA Section 3115(c)(3)).

o To provide community participation programs, family literacy services, and

parent and family outreach and training activities, which may include English as a

Second Language courses for parents and families of ELs in order to assist

parents and families in helping their children to improve their academic

achievement, and to help parents and families to become active participants in the

education of their children. (ESEA Section 3115(d)(6)).

• An LEA receiving Title III immigrant subgrant funds under ESEA Section 3114(d)(1)

may use those funds—

o For family literacy, parent and family outreach, and training activities designed to

assist parents and families to become active participants in the education of their

children; and

o To provide activities, in coordination with community-based organizations,

institutions of higher education, private sector entities, or other entities with

expertise in working with immigrants, to assist parents and families of immigrant

children and youth by offering comprehensive community services. (ESEA

Section 3115(e)(1)(A), (G)).

For all of these activities, an LEA may not use Title III funds to meet its obligations under Title

VI and the EEOA, as described in question E-1. Title III funds may be used to supplement an

LEA’s activities if the LEA is already meeting its obligation to ensure meaningful

communication with LEP parents in a language they can understand.

E-5. What notifications must an LEA provide to parents of ELs under the ESEA?

Title I requires that every LEA that uses funds under either Title I or Title III for services to ELs

must provide a parent with notification that outlines their child’s identification as an EL and

placement in an LIEP. (ESEA Section 1112(e)(3)).

The parental notification must include:

• The reason for identification of the child as an EL;

• The child’s level of English language proficiency, how the level was assessed, and the

status of the child’s academic achievement;

• Methods of instruction used in the program in which the child is, or will be, participating,

and the methods of instruction used in other available programs, including how the

programs differ;

• How the program will meet the educational strengths and needs of the child and help the

child achieve English language proficiency, and meet academic standards;

• Exit requirements for the program, expected rate of transition to a classroom not tailored

for EL students, and expected rate of high school graduation;

• In the case of a child with a disability, how the program meets the annual goals in the

child’s individualized education program (IEP); and

• Information regarding parents’ right to withdraw the child from a program upon their

request, and to decline enrollment or choose another program or method of instruction, if

available.

(ESEA 1112(e)(3)(A)).

The notification must be provided no later than 30 calendar days after the beginning of the

school year or within the first two weeks of placement in an LIEP for students who enroll after

the start of the school year. (ESEA Section 1112(e)(3)(A), 1112(e)(3)(B)).

The notice and information provided must be in an understandable and uniform format and, to

the extent practicable, provided in a language that the parents can understand.

(ESEA Section

1112(e)(4)).

E-6. May the parent of a child who is identified as an EL decline to enroll in, or have the

student removed from, the LIEP?

Yes. As explained in question E-5, each LEA must provide written notification to parents of ELs

of, among other things, information pertaining to the right of parents to have their child removed

from the LIEP or to decline to enroll in such program. (ESEA 1112(e)(3)(A)(viii)).

Under

Title VI and the EEOA, a parent’s decision to opt out of a program for ELs must be knowing and

voluntary, and an LEA may not recommend that parents decline all or some services within a

program for ELs for any reason.

Note, however, that if an EL is not participating in the LIEP, the LEA still has the obligation

under Title VI and EEOA to take “affirmative steps” and “appropriate action” to provide the

student with access to its educational programs. The English language and other academic needs

of such an EL student must still be met.

In addition, the ESEA requires that the LEA still must assess all ELs using the annual English

language proficiency assessment, including those students whose parents have declined to enroll

them in, or had them removed from, LIEPs. All ELs enrolled in schools served by the State must

be assessed annually using the State’s English language proficiency assessment. (ESEA Section

1111(b)(2)(G), emphasis added). State or district assessment policies, if they include a right to

opt a child out of assessments, do not override or diminish the LEA’s obligation to assess 100

percent of ELs using the annual English language proficiency assessment.

E-7. What resources does the Department provide to support parent, family, and

community engagement?

The Department has numerous resources available to support States and LEAs in conducting

meaningful parent, family, and community engagement. These resources include:

• The Dual Capacity Building Framework, which focuses on building the capacity of

educators and families to work collaboratively to support positive outcomes for all

students;

• Chapter 10 of the EL Tool Kit, which provides tools and resources to ensure meaningful

communication with LEP parents;

• The Resource Guide: Supporting Undocumented Youth, which is designed to help

secondary schools, institutions of higher education, teachers, and other personnel support

While the ESEA expressly includes certain protections for LEP parents, the ESEA does not override an LEA’s

independent obligations under Title VI and the EEOA, which requires LEAs to ensure meaningful communication

with LEP parents in a language they can understand. For additional information, see question E-14.

Parents also have a right under Title VI and the EEOA to decline or opt their children out of an LEA’s program

for ELs or out of particular language services within a program for ELs.

For additional information about LEAs’ Title VI and EEOA obligations to EL students, including EL students

who opt out of an LEA’s program for ELs, see the DCL referenced in question A-3, section II.G, “Meeting the

Needs of EL Students Who Opt Out of EL Programs or Particular EL Services,” pp. 29-32.

For more information, see the DCL referenced in question A-3, section II.G, pp. 29-32.

the college and career success of undocumented youth in secondary and postsecondary

settings;

• The White House Task Force for New Americans Webinar Series, which focused on the

educational and linguistic integration of immigrants and refugees, including engaging

with immigrant parents and families; and

• The Newcomer Tool Kit, which provides educators and others who work directly with

immigrant students—including asylees and refugees—and their families with tools,

strategies, and examples of effective classroom and schoolwide practices.

F- Early Learning

F-1. How are early learning programs included in Title III?

While Title III funds could also be used to serve ELs as young as age 3 under the ESEA prior to

the ESSA amendments, the ESSA amendments further promote the inclusion of ELs in early

learning programs as part of Title III. The relevant statutory provisions are highlighted below:

• ESEA Section 3102, which outlines the purposes of Title III, now explicitly includes

preschool teachers.

o One of the purposes of Title III is to assist teachers (including preschool

teachers), principals and other school leaders, State educational agencies, local

educational agencies, and schools in establishing, implementing and sustaining

effective language instruction educational programs designed to assist in teaching

English learners, including immigrant children and youth.

o Another purpose of Title III is to assist teachers (including preschool teachers),

principals and other school leaders, State educational agencies, and local

educational agencies to develop and enhance their capacity to provide effective

instructional programs designed to prepare English learners, including immigrant

children and youth, to enter all-English instructional settings.

• ESEA Section 3115, which outlines provisions related to the Title III EL formula

subgrants, now refers to early childhood education programs as part of the stated

purposes of subgrants and in the authorized uses of funds.

o One of the purposes of Title III EL formula subgrants is developing and

implementing new language instruction educational programs and academic

content instructional programs for English learners and immigrant children and

youth, including early childhood education programs, elementary school

programs, and secondary school programs.

o LEAs receiving Title III EL formula subgrants may use funds to develop and

implement effective preschool, elementary school, or secondary school language

instruction educational programs that are coordinated with other relevant

programs and services.

Emphasis added in the following bullets.

• ESEA Section 3116, which contains the requirements for local plans for the Title III EL

subgrants, includes a new assurance pertaining to early learning programs, if applicable.

o LEAs must assure that they will, if applicable, coordinate activities and share

relevant data under the plan with local Head Start and Early Head Start agencies,

including migrant and seasonal Head Start agencies, and other early childhood

education providers.

F-2. May a State or LEA include preschool teachers in pre-service and in-service

professional development activities provided using Title III funds?

Yes. Title III funds may be used to provide professional development for teachers of ELs in

publicly funded preschool programs to help ensure that preschool teachers are well prepared to

meet the unique needs of ELs in those preschool programs.

We encourage States and LEAs to

include preschool teachers in professional development. Early learning programs, including

preschools, can set ELs on a strong path to long-term school success; professional development

to strengthen the knowledge and skills of preschool teachers working with ELs may help

facilitate these positive outcomes on a broader scale.

F-3. How may an LEA provide language instruction in a preschool program for ELs,

consistent with Title III requirements?

An LEA receiving a Title III subgrant may use a portion of those funds to provide effective

preschool LIEPs that are coordinated with other relevant programs and services by providing

supplemental language instruction for ELs in public preschool programs. In doing so, an LEA

may braid Title III subgrant funds with other funding streams available to provide effective

preschool language instruction for ELs. As with any use of the funds under Title III, an LEA

must comply with the statutory supplement-not-supplant provision under ESEA Section 3115

(See questions A-2 and A-3.) An LEA should prioritize funds for high-quality and effective

preschool programs when utilizing Title III funds to support language instruction for ELs in

preschool, as these programs may be more likely to produce positive outcomes like improved

school readiness and language development. For more information on high-quality early

learning programs, please see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance on early learning

opportunities under the ESEA, available at (link to be added once the early learning guidance

has been published). For more information on supplement-not-supplant obligations, see Section

A of this document.

F-4. What are some examples of how an LEA may use Title III funds in preschool

programs?

A district may use Title III funds for language instruction educational services in an existing

preschool program that the district operates or funds, as long as the use of funds is

supplementary and the funds are prorated proportionally to the number of ELs in the program.

• For example, District A operates a preschool program for four-year-olds that is currently

funded with State and local funds, and half the students are ELs. The LEA plans to start

With regard to private and community-based preschools, see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance on early

learning, available at: (link to be added once the early learning guidance has been published)).

implementing, in this existing program, a new optional dual-language preschool model

that has a record of effectiveness. It wishes to use Title III funds for EL-related

professional development for the preschool teachers (which meets the four requirements

of ESEA Section 3115(c)(2) for professional development) and to purchase bilingual

learning materials. Assuming that the professional development and the bilingual

materials have not previously been provided from different funding sources, and that all

of the teachers interact with all of the students, the LEA may use Title III funds for these

purposes; however, those funds can be used for only half the per-pupil cost of the

learning materials, because half the students are not ELs.

• As another example, District B currently operates a preschool program for four-year-olds

that is currently funded with State and local funds, and one-third of the students are ELs.

Two of the teachers have received training in teaching ELs, and the district wishes to use

Title III funds to pay the salaries of those trained preschool teachers, and also to start

conducting weekly family learning nights for the entire preschool population. The LEA

may not use Title III funds for the teacher salaries; that would raise a rebuttable

presumption of supplanting because those salaries were previously paid from State and

local funds (see #A-2 above for more information). The LEA could use Title III funds

for one-third of the total cost of the family nights, because one-third of the students are

ELs.

The same considerations apply if a district starts a new preschool program. In addition, in either

situation, although districts have the flexibility to use the Title III funds in the grade levels or

schools that it chooses, the district must ensure that it also meets the three required uses of funds

in ESEA Section 3115(c) (i.e., to supplement LIEPs, to provide effective professional

development, and to provide other activities that must include parent, family, and community

engagement).

F-5. What considerations should an LEA take into account before using Title III funds to

support ELs in preschool?

An LEA that uses Title III subgrant funds to support preschool-aged ELs should ensure that its

language instruction and other services are developmentally appropriate for young ELs,

culturally responsive, reflective of the latest research on effective instruction for ELs in early

learning programs, and supportive of all ELs’ needs. An LEA should consider the

developmental and language needs of children when determining which students may be served

using Title III funds.

Like LIEPS in elementary and secondary schools, LIEPs provided in preschool for ELs must

also be “effective,” and should be expected to demonstrate improved learning outcomes for ELs.

(ESEA Section 3115(a), (c)). For more information, please see question C-3.

For more information on promising practices to support ELs from birth through age 5, please see

the Joint U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’

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

in Early Childhood Programs,” available at

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

F-6. What data should LEAs share and what activities should LEAs coordinate with Head

Start agencies (including Early Head Start and migrant and seasonal Head Start agencies)

and other early childhood education providers?

The alignment of standards, curricula, instruction, and assessment systems for students from

birth to age 8 may benefit children in early learning programs and elementary schools, including

ELs, as it facilitates greater continuity and better organization of supports for students. This

alignment may also help to make expectations more consistent between programs and foster

greater collaboration between early learning programs and elementary schools.

The requirement that, as part of the local plan, LEAs that receive Title III subgrant funds must

coordinate activities and share data with early childhood programs (ESEA Section 3116) should

help lead to improved alignment across the early educational years and improved outcomes for

ELs. Effective implementation of this new provision will lead to better coordination between

Head Start, other early childhood programs, and schools served by the LEA, while facilitating a

strong transition for ELs into elementary and secondary education. LEAs may hold joint

professional development for elementary educators and preschool teachers of ELs, including

those in Head Start and other early childhood community-based settings, coordinate data

reporting and sharing, align standards and curricula, and conduct transition activities for children

and families, as part of the activities coordinated with early childhood programs.

In determining which data would be most appropriate to share with early learning programs,

including Head Start agencies, we encourage LEAs to consult with and solicit feedback from

early learning programs in the community. We also encourage LEAs to consider which

indicators would be most beneficial to create a feedback loop that informs the improvement of

programs and supports for ELs, and then to consider which data could most accurately be used to

measure progress against such indicators. For example, collecting and analyzing kindergarten

entry assessment data, data from the annual English language proficiency assessment given in

kindergarten or first grade, and elementary school academic achievement data could help to

identify strengths of early learning programs in preparing ELs for academic success and areas for

improvement. In considering whether to share or exchange student data, LEAs must comply

with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA); for further information on those

requirements, contact the Department’s Family Policy Compliance Office or see

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/index.html.

G-Immigrant Subgrant and Serving Immigrant Students

G-1. How is an “immigrant child or youth” defined under Title III of the ESEA?

The term “immigrant children and youth,” which is defined in Section 3201(5) of the ESEA,

refers to individuals who: (A) are aged 3 through 21; (B) were not born in any State; and (C)

have not been attending one or more schools in any one or more States for more than 3 full

academic years. Note that “State” is defined in Section 3201(13) of the ESEA to include the 50

States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Therefore, students born in Puerto Rico may

not be included as “immigrant” students under Title III.

Finally, note that the term “immigrant” as used in Title III is not related to an individual's legal

status in the United States. Under the U.S. Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, schools are

required to provide equal access to a basic public education to all students, regardless of

immigration status. For more information see OCR’s Guidance for School Districts to Ensure

Equal Access for All Children to Public Schools Regardless of Immigration Status, available at

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/raceorigin.html.

G-2. How must a State allocate funds reserved under ESEA Section 3114(d) – the required

reservation for immigrant children and youth (immigrant subgrant)? How might a State

allocate immigrant subgrant funds in a manner that increases the potential impact of these

funds?

A State must reserve at least enough funds to make one subgrant to an eligible LEA to serve

immigrant students that is of sufficient size and scope to carry out a program that is effective in

meeting the purposes of Title III. (ESEA Section 3114(d)). Each State must award these funds

to one or more LEAs that have experienced a significant increase in the percentage or number of

immigrant children and youth, as compared to the two preceding fiscal years. (ESEA Section

3114(d)(1)). While a State may choose whether to use an increase in the percentage or number

of immigrant children and youth in awarding funds to LEAs, we encourage States to consider

both increases in the percentage and in the number of immigrant children and youth in order to

ensure an equitable allocation of funds across LEAs of various sizes. A State may define the

“significant increase” criteria used to determine eligibility of LEAs for this subgrant (see

question A-16). If a State’s definition is not sufficient to allow at least one LEA to meet

the definition and permit at least one immigrant subgrant to be made, the State may change its

definition. Defining “significant increase” may provide a State the opportunity to award an

immigrant subgrant to an LEA that, while it has experienced a significant increase in immigrant

students, still does not have enough EL students to qualify for the minimum formula subgrant

award of $10,000. (ESEA Section 3114(b)).

In order to ensure that immigrant subgrant awards are used for meaningful activities that improve

outcomes for immigrant children and youth, we encourage States to provide awards of an

adequate size (i.e., making fewer, larger awards) so that each LEA can use these funds for a

high-quality program. In awarding these subgrants, a State must equally consider LEAs that

have limited or no experience in serving immigrant children and youth. States must also

consider the quality of the local plans that the LEAs submit under Section 3116. (ESEA Section

3114(d)). In order to make at least one immigrant subgrant, a State has discretion with respect

to:

1. The size and scope of the award;

2. Whether to make such awards on a discretionary or formula basis;

3. Whether to make awards multi-year or for a single year; and

4. The definition of “significant increase.”

G-3. How must a State determine whether an LEA has had a “significant increase” in

immigrant children and youth?

The ESEA prior to the ESSA amendments required a State to consider the preceding fiscal year’s

data as compared to the average of the two fiscal years preceding that year. The ESEA as

amended by the ESSA requires a State to consider the current fiscal year’s data as compared to

the average of the two preceding fiscal years. For more information, please see question A-16.

G-4. How must an LEA use Title III immigrant subgrant funds? How might an LEA

prioritize certain uses of funds to respond to the unique needs of the immigrant children

and youth that it serves?

Under the statute, an LEA must use the immigrant subgrant to provide enhanced instructional

opportunities for immigrant children and youth (ESEA Section 3115(e)). Activities may include

(with ESSA changes emphasized):

• Family literacy, parent and family outreach, and training activities designed to assist

parents and families to become active participants in the education of their children;

• Recruitment of and support for personnel, including teachers and paraprofessionals who

have been specifically trained, or are being trained, to provide services to immigrant

children and youth;

• Provision of tutorials, mentoring, and academic or career counseling for immigrant

children and youth;

• Identification, development, and acquisition of curricular materials, educational software,

and technologies to be used in the program;

• Basic instruction services that are directly attributable to the presence of immigrant

children and youth in the LEA, including the payment of costs of providing additional

classroom supplies, costs of transportation, or such other costs as are directly attributable

to such additional basic instruction services;

• Other instruction services that are designed to assist immigrant children and youth to

achieve in elementary and secondary schools in the U.S., such as programs of

introduction to the educational system and civics education; and

• Activities, coordinated with community-based organizations, institutions of higher

education, private sector entities, or other entities with expertise in working with

immigrants, to assist parents and families of immigrant children and youth by offering

comprehensive community services.

We strongly encourage an LEA that receives Title III immigrant subgrant funds to prioritize

activities that will meet the unique needs of the immigrant children and youth enrolled in the

LEA, as well as parents and families of these students. Conducting a needs assessment and

measuring the impact of activities provided using Title III funds may help to ensure that these

funds are used meaningfully and that LEAs are able to successfully support immigrant children

and youth.

G-5. What additional resources are provided by the Department to help LEAs and schools

support immigrant children and youth?

The Department, as part of the White House Task Force on New Americans, has developed a

number of resources for States, LEAs, and schools to support immigrant children and youth. For

the totality of resources, please visit the Department’s immigration webpage available at

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/immigration-resources.html. Among other resources,

the Department’s Newcomer Tool Kit is designed to help schools support immigrants, refugees,

and their families with a successful integration process; the Tool Kit is available at

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/new-comer-toolit/ncomertoolkit.pdf.

H-Reporting and Data Collection

H-1. Does Title III have additional reporting requirements for LEAs to report to States on

ELs, beyond what is required to be reported under the Title I State and LEA report cards?

Yes. Title I requires that States and LEAs annually report on ELs’ progress in achieving English

language proficiency, attainment of English language proficiency, academic achievement, and

high school graduation rates. (ESEA Section 1111(h)(1), (h)(2)). Under Title III, there are

additional reporting requirements. LEAs must report to their States on

- Title III programs and activities

- Number and percentage of ELs making progress toward English language proficiency

- Number and percentage of ELs who attain proficiency and exit LIEPs

- Number and percentage of former ELs who meet academic content standards (for 4

years)

- Number and percentage of ELs who have not exited LIEPs after 5 years as an EL

- Any other information required by the SEA.

H-2. For which reporting elements is an LEA required to disaggregate EL data by the

number and percentage of English learners with disabilities?

Under ESEA Section 3121, an LEA must disaggregate by English learners with disabilities in

reporting the number and percentage of ELs making progress toward English language

proficiency, and in reporting the number and percentage of former ELs meeting State academic

standards for each of the four years after they no longer receive Title III services. Thus, for each

of those two data elements, an LEA will report in the aggregate (all ELs, including English

learners with disabilities) and report separately on English learners with disabilities.

H-3. Should LEAs disaggregate their EL data by English learners with disabilities on any

additional measures, besides the two required under Title III?

We encourage LEAs to consider disaggregating, by English learners with disabilities, additional

measures that are required under Title III to be reported to States, including attainment of

English language proficiency and the number and percentage of ELs who have not attained

proficiency within five years of initial classification as an EL. (See ESEA Section 3121).

H-4. Should LEAs consider disaggregating data reported under Title III by any other

subgroups of ELs, besides English learners with disabilities? If so, for what purposes?

A State should consider requiring reporting of Title III data disaggregated by other subgroups of

ELs. LEAs should also analyze disaggregated EL performance data by other subgroups of ELs,

including long-term ELs, recently arrived ELs, and EL students with interrupted formal

These are general summaries of the reporting requirements; for specific requirements see ESEA section 3121.

education (SIFE), as defined by the State. As stated above, more detailed data will enable LEAs

to better tailor services funded under Title III to meet the unique needs of ELs and to identify and

appropriately respond to gaps in achievement between different groups of ELs and when

compared to non-EL peers.

Disaggregating student performance data may provide valuable information on how different

subgroups of ELs are performing. These data can inform program improvement and help LEAs

and States address gaps in achievement between EL subgroups. ELs are a highly diverse student

population; disaggregated data can provide a more detailed picture of performance variation

among different subgroups of ELs including, but not limited to, English learners with disabilities.

In addition to disaggregating for distinct populations of ELs, LEAs should analyze disaggregated

data by type of LIEP. Performance data by program type may help LEAs to determine which

LIEPs are meeting the Title III requirement to be effective in improving English language

proficiency and academic achievement for ELs who participate in such programs. These

disaggregated data may help an LEA to take appropriate steps to avoid civil rights violations

under Title VI and the EEOA and modify its LIEPs if, for example, a particular program type or

model is not generating improved outcomes for ELs.

I-Long-term English Learners

I-1. How is a long-term EL defined by the ESEA?

The ESEA does not define “long-term English learner.” However, the reporting requirement

under ESEA Section 3121(a)(6) may be instructive in determining which ELs served under Title

III are long-term ELs. Specifically, this provision requires LEAs receiving Title III subgrants to

biannually report the number and percentage of ELs who have not yet attained English language

proficiency within five years of initial classification as an EL and first enrollment in the LEA.

Thus, beyond the specific reporting requirement in ESEA Section 3121(a)(6), States and LEAs

may consider ELs who have not attained English language proficiency after five years as long-

term ELs. Long-term ELs who remain in EL status for prolonged periods of time may face

significant barriers to attaining English language proficiency and graduating college- and career-

ready. Thus, many SEAs and LEAs have focused recent efforts on decreasing the number of

long-term ELs in schools and on providing additional supports to these students. These students

may require additional supports in order to achieve English language proficiency.

I-2. Which long-term ELs must be included as part of the reporting requirement under

ESEA Section 3121(a)(6)?

ESEA Section 3121(a)(6) requires that an LEA annually report the number and percentage of

ELs who have not attained English language proficiency within five years of initial classification

as an EL and first enrollment in the LEA. Therefore, an LEA must include in this measure all

ELs enrolled in schools in the LEA who have not attained English language proficiency (based

on the annual English language proficiency assessment) within five years of initial classification

as an EL and first enrollment in the LEA.

If an EL moves into another LEA, the “new” LEA should still include that student in reporting

on this measure if he or she has not attained English language proficiency within five years of

initial classification in the student’s original LEA. Including those long-term ELs who have not

been enrolled in the same LEA for the entire period of their schooling is critical for ensuring that

no child falls through the cracks and is unable to attain English language proficiency despite

receiving EL services for many years. A State should take steps to ensure prompt and complete

data-sharing among LEAs, which helps not only for this reporting requirement, but also for

instructional and student support purposes.

I-3. How might an LEA and SEA use the data on ELs who have not yet attained English

language proficiency within five years of initial classification as an EL and first enrollment

in the LEA to improve its programs for ELs?

Long-term ELs may need unique supports to address both academic and non-academic factors,

such as social emotional skills development, that may impact the time it takes them to attain

English language proficiency. Positive emotional well-being correlates with higher rates of

academic engagement, a sense of belonging and connectedness in school. LEAs and States can

actively support skill development by creating safe learning environments where it is safe to

express emotions and providing strategies for critical problem solving with emphasis on

communication and relational skills. Academic factors may also impact the time it takes them to

attain English language proficiency. For example, long-term ELs may have not received the

high-quality English language development services they need to learn academic English, and

may not have access to English language materials and supports outside of school, such as

assistance with homework in English. In order to support these students, we encourage LEAs

and States to use these data to determine whether any modifications to LIEPs are necessary and

whether additional targeted services, which have been shown to be effective in increasing

English language proficiency, may be needed to help long-term ELs.

J-Former English Learners

J-1. Which ELs must be included as part of the reporting requirement regarding former

ELs under ESEA Section 3121(a)(5)?

ESEA Section 3121(a)(5) requires that LEAs report on the number and percentage of ELs

meeting the challenging State academic standards for four years after such students are no longer

receiving Title III services. To meet this requirement, an LEA must report to the State on the

academic achievement of an EL for each year of the four years after such student has achieved

English language proficiency and no longer receives EL services. These data must include

results on content assessments for reading/language arts, mathematics, and science. The students

included in this reporting must include all former ELs served by the LEA who have achieved

English language proficiency and therefore no longer receive any EL services.

These data must be disaggregated by English learners with disabilities. (ESEA Section

3121(a)(5)). For more information, please see question H-2. An LEA should also disaggregate

A similar reporting requirement under the ESEA prior to the ESSA revisions required reporting on former ELs for

two years. These students are often referred to as “monitored former ELs.” See question J-3 below regarding civil

rights obligation to monitor former ELs.

data by year after exit (e.g., 1

year, 2

year) to ensure that any academic deficits incurred due to

participation in a language assistance program are recouped.

J-2. May a State use different criteria to identify a former EL for Title III reporting

purposes than to identify a former EL that may be included in the Academic Achievement

indicator for accountability purposes under Title I?

No. A student that exits EL status because he meets the State’s definition of proficiency is a

former EL, and must be considered such for purposes of Title III reporting, Title I accountability

(if a State chooses to include former ELs for accountability purposes), and a State’s civil rights

obligations.

J-3. How might an LEA or SEA use the data on former ELs, required under ESEA Section

3121(a)(5), to improve its programs for ELs?

The ESEA requires that a State and LEA use the data reported under Title III to inform program

improvement. (ESEA Section 3121(b)). The specific data measure on the academic

achievement of former ELs will provide an important opportunity to monitor the progress of

these students to determine whether they are performing academically on par with their never-EL

peers or whether gaps in achievement remain. These data may be used to determine whether a

student should be re-assessed for EL services, or whether he or she may need additional supports

in order to meet the challenging State academic standards.

Under Title VI and the EEOA, States and LEAs have separate obligations to monitor the

progress of exited EL students. After students have exited an EL program, school districts must

monitor the academic progress of former EL students to ensure that: the students have not been

prematurely exited; any academic deficits they incurred as a result of participation in the EL

program have been remedied; and they are meaningfully participating in the standard

instructional program comparable to their never-EL peers. When a school district’s monitoring

of former EL student indicates that a persistent language barrier may be the cause of academic

difficulty, LEAs should re-assess the student with a valid and reliable, grade-appropriate English

language proficiency test to determine if there is a persistent language barrier and must offer

additional language assistance services where needed to meet its civil rights obligations.

K-English learners with disabilities

K-1. What are the new requirements under Title III for English learners with disabilities

and how can States, LEAs, and schools use this data to improve instruction for English

learners with disabilities?

The discussion of English learners with disabilities in this document focuses on the IDEA and does not address the

rights of students with disabilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Title II of the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990. LEAs must ensure that EL students are not incorrectly identified as students with

disabilities because of their limited English proficiency, which may not be the basis of a child’s disability

determination under the IDEA. See 34 CFR §300.306(b)(1)(iii). Such incorrect identification would constitute

different treatment based on national origin in violation of Title VI.

The ESEA supports States’ efforts to accelerate the progress of ELs in several ways. These

include acknowledging the diversity of ELs and drawing attention to subgroups of ELs by

requiring that certain data reported under Title III be disaggregated by English learners with

disabilities. Specifically, the new reporting requirement under Title III of the ESEA requires that

States and LEAs report the number and percentage of ELs in the programs and activities who are

making progress toward achieving English language proficiency in the aggregate and

disaggregated, at a minimum, by English learners with disabilities; it also requires that the data

on former ELs be disaggregated by English learners with disabilities (ESEA Section 3121(a)(2),

(a)(5)). For more information, see question H-2.

Additionally, although not required by Title III, States, LEAs, and schools are encouraged to

consider further disaggregating the data on English learners with disabilities’ attainment of

English language proficiency, and the number and percentage of English learners with

disabilities who have not attained proficiency within five years of initial classification as an EL.

(See question H-3). States, LEAs, and schools should use the Title III data on English learners

with disabilities to inform program planning, staff professional development, and instructional

decision-making. These data can also inform program improvements and help LEAs and States

determine instruction to address gaps in achievement.

K-2. How do the new Title III reporting requirements differ from the IDEA reporting

requirements for English learners with disabilities?

The new Title III reporting requirements are intended to track progress toward achieving English

language proficiency for students identified as ELs, including English learners with disabilities.

There is no similar reporting requirement under Section 618 of the IDEA. Rather, under Section

618 of the IDEA, States must continue to report data each year to the Secretary and the public on

the number and percentage of children with disabilities by race, ethnicity, gender, limited

English proficiency status, and disability category in specified areas, including the number and

percentage of children: who are receiving special education and related services on the State-

designated child count date (Part B Child Count Data); the educational environment in which

they are receiving services on the State-designated child count date (Part B Educational

Environments Data); and how they exit special education (e.g., graduate with a regular high

school diploma, receive a certificate, or dropout) (Part B Exiting Data). (IDEA Section 618, 20

U.S.C. §1418(a)(1)).

K-3. What should SEAs and LEAs consider when determining the effectiveness of teachers

and professional development for teachers who teach English learners with disabilities?

Instruction for English learners with disabilities should take into account their specific special

education and related services needs, as well as their language needs. Teachers should have an

understanding of the second language acquisition process, and how this might be influenced by

the child’s individual development, knowledge of EL effective instructional practices and, if

relevant, the child’s disability. Note that under the IDEA, States and LEAs must establish and

maintain qualifications to ensure that personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of Part B of

the IDEA are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained, and that those personnel have

the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities.

These personnel

qualifications and personnel development requirements apply to personnel serving English

learners with disabilities.

K-4. What guidance and resources are available to assist States, LEAs, and school staff in

providing appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations for English learners

with disabilities?

Federal resources to support States in this area are available through Department-funded

technical assistance centers such as the National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) and

the Center for Parent Information and Resources (CPIR). CPIR provides an annotated list of

resources that address how to make determinations regarding accommodations; below are some

examples.

• Accommodations Manual: How to Select, Administer, and Evaluate Use of

Accommodations for Instruction and Assessment of Students with Disabilities. This

includes fact sheets and teacher tools.

www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/accommodations_manual.asp;

• Online Accommodations Bibliography: NCEO resource on the range of possible

accommodations and what empirical research studies have to say about the effects of

various testing accommodations for students with disabilities.

www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/AccommBibliography/AccomStudies.htm;

• Special Topic Area: Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. NCEO answers

frequently asked questions about testing accommodations for students with disabilities,

discusses State policies and research in this area, and offers a number of research-based

publications to guide policy and decision-making.

www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/Accommodations/Accomtopic.htm.

See 34 CFR §§300.156 (personnel qualifications) and 300.207 (personnel development).

Appendix A: Glossary

English learner – The term “English learner,” when used with respect to an individual, means

an individual —

(A) who is aged 3 through 21;

(B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;

(C)(i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than

English;

(ii)(I) who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas;

and

(II) who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a

significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or

(iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who

comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and

(D) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may

be sufficient to deny the individual —

(i) the ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;

(ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is

English; or

(iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society.

(ESEA Section 8101(20))

English learners with disabilities – The phrase “English learners with disabilities” refers to

English learners who are also “children with disabilities” under the IDEA, as defined in Section

602(3) of that Act and 34 CFR §300.8.

(ESEA Section 3201(4))

Immigrant children and youth – The term “immigrant children and youth” means individuals

who—

(A) are aged 3 through 21;

(B) were not born in any State; and

academic years.

(ESEA Section 3201(5))

Note that “State” is defined in Section 3201(13) of the ESEA to include the 50 States, the District

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Therefore, students born in Puerto Rico cannot be included as

“immigrant” students under Title III.

Immigrant subgrant – These are subgrants for which each State must reserve not more than 15

percent of the State’s Title III allocation for LEAs in the State that have experienced a significant

increase in the percentage or number of immigrant children and youth who have enrolled in

schools in the LEA in the current fiscal year compared to the average of the last two fiscal years.

(See ESEA Section 3114(d)).

Language instruction educational program – The term “language instruction educational

program” means an instruction course —

(A) in which an English learner is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English

proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic standards; and

(B) that may make instructional use of both English and a child's native language to enable the

child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English

proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become

proficient in English and a second language.

(ESEA Section 3201(7))

Title III EL formula subgrant – These are formula subgrants to LEAs that each State must

award for a fiscal year by allocating funds in a timely manner to each LEA in the State with an

approved Title III plan. (See ESEA Section 3114(a)). Grant funds are allocated based on the

number of ELs in the LEA, and are only made to LEAs for which the number of ELs yields a

subgrant of at least $10,000. (ESEA Section 3114(b)).

Appendix B: Resources by Topic Area

The U.S. Department of Education does not mandate or prescribe practices, models, or other

activities in this non-regulatory guidance document. This guidance contains examples of,

adaptations of, and links to resources created and maintained by other public and private

organizations. This information, informed by research and gathered in part from practitioners, is

provided for the reader’s convenience and is included here to offer examples of the many

resources that educators, parents, advocates, administrators, and other concerned parties may

find helpful and use at their discretion. The U.S. Department of Education does not control or

guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information.

Further, the inclusion of links to items and examples does not reflect their importance, nor are

they intended to represent or be an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any

views expressed, or materials provided.

Children with Disabilities

See question and answer K-4.

Data

Through the Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) program, the Department has

supported the development of data systems to improve instruction, practices, services, and

policies.

The Department provides data through its user-friendly tool, ED Data Express, including data on

ELs: http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/

The Department provides data on ELs as part of the Civil Rights Data Collection:

http://ocrdata.ed.gov/

Educational Experiences of English Learners: Analyses of Extant Data (2016). Three briefs

describe the educational experiences and performance of English learner (EL) students based on

data from the 2011–12 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and other data. There is an

instructional staff brief, college preparatory courses and programs brief, and grade retention,

high school graduation, and GED attainment brief.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#titleiii

Dual Language Learners

Dual Language Education Programs: Current State Policies and Practices (December 2015) This

report was prepared under a U.S. Department of Education contract with the American Institutes

for Research, and contains an analysis of research and extant data related to dual language

education policies and practices.

https://ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/TO20_DualLanguageRpt_508.pdf

This U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services joint

Policy Statement on Supporting the Development of Children Who are Dual Language Learners

in Early Childhood Programs provides recommendations for States and local communities to

promote the development and learning of young children, birth to age five, who are dual

language learners.

General Resources

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) – NCELA operates under a

contract funded by the U.S. Department of Education that is administered by the Office of

English Language Acquisition. The NCELA website contains a searchable resource library of

more than 20,000 items related to English learner education. The site also contains demographic

and State data, State profiles, links to external resources, and many other types of valuable

information. http://ncela.ed.gov/

The Center for Applied Linguistics has developed a variety of publications related to the

teaching and learning of languages, linguistics, policy, immigrant and refugee integration, and

more. http://www.cal.org/resource-center/publications

Language Instruction Educational Programs

The paper, Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEPs): A Review of the Foundational

Literature (2012), describes LIEP characteristics that may influence the quality of programs

delivered to ELs in grades K through 12.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#titleiii

The U.S. Department of Education’s English Learner Tool Kit contains recommendations on

promising practices to ensure LIEPs facilitate improved ELP and academic outcomes.

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

The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Educational Sciences Practice Guide “Teaching

academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school” provides

research and practice on instructing ELs. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=19.

The U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) has conducted reviews

to examine the evidence of effectiveness of interventions designed for students whose primary

language is not English and who have limited English speaking, reading, writing, and listening

skills. Reviewed studies are found on the WWC website.

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Topic.aspx?sid=6

The Center for Applied Linguistics’ report, Developing Academic Literacy and Language in the

Content Areas, provides research-based strategies and practical, hands-on tools to help educators

develop effective classroom strategies aligned with standards. http://www.cal.org/resource-

center/publications/developing-academic-literacy-and-language-in-the-content-areas

Legal Obligations to English Learners and English Learner Parents

Information about an LEA’s obligations to EL students and limited English proficient parents

under Title VI and the EEOA is available in a Dear Colleague Letter jointly released by the

Department and the U.S. Department of Justice in January 2015.

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

Immigrant Children and Youth

For information regarding immigrant students see OCR’s Guidance for School Districts to

Ensure Equal Access for All Children to Public Schools Regardless of Immigration Status.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/raceorigin.html. Also

see the following resources available from the Office for Civil Rights:

Dear Colleague Letter (DCL): http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-

201405.pdf

Q&A about DCL: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201405.pdf

Fact sheet about DCL: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201405.pdf

The U. S. Department of Education, as part of the White House Task Force on New Americans,

has developed a number of resources for States, LEAs, and schools to support immigrant

children and youth. For the totality of resources, please visit the Department’s immigration

webpage available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/immigration-resources.html.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Newcomer Tool Kit is designed to help schools support

immigrants, refugees, and their families with a successful integration process.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/new-comer-toolit/ncomertoolkit.pdf

Private School Consultation and Equitable Services

The Office of Non-Public Education (ONPE) provides resources to help assist SEAs and LEAs

in meeting their obligations to ensure the provision of equitable services to eligible private

school students and teachers in applicable programs. Information on ESSA and the participation

of private school students, teachers, and other educational personnel are located on

ONPE’s

ESSA webpage.

Title III Program Implementation

For general information on Title III program implementation see the Biennial Report to Congress

on the Implementation of the Title III Grant Program. (October 2015) Available at

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

For information from LEAs and SEAs regarding implementation of the Title III State Formula

Grant Program, see the National Evaluation of Title III Implementation: Report on State and

Local Implementation (2012). This report answers a range of questions about the implementation

of the Title III program drawing on data collected during the 2009-10 school year through

telephone interviews with all State Title III directors, a survey of a nationally representative

sample of 1,528 Title III subgrantees, and case studies of a purposive sample of 12 LEAs nested

within five States. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#titleiii