Appendix I Language Instructional Program Types in North Carolina

North Carolina Title III Application 2014-2015 Appendices

Contents

I Language Instruction Educational Programs in North Carolina Public Schools

II SAMPLE North Carolina Home Language Survey Form

III North Carolina Home Language Survey Process

IV SBE Policy GCS-K-000

V Selected OCR Guidance

VI PRC 104 Federal Allotment Formula

VII PRC 111 Federal Allotment Formula

VIII PRC 054 State Allotment Formula

IX Supplement not Supplant Final Letter 10-2-08_2

X Sample Title III Lead Teacher Description

XI Sample Title III Parent Liaison Description

XII Guidance for BASIC Language Instruction Educational Program Services

Also refer to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Elementary & Secondary Education Title III —

Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg39.html

p. 2 p. 3 p. 4 - 8 p. 9 - 11 p. 12 - 18 p. 19 - 20 p. 21 - 22 p. 23 p. 24 – 27 p. 28 p. 29 p. 30-31

NC Title III Application 2014-2015 Appendices Page 1 of 31

Appendix I

Language Instruction Educational Program Types in North Carolina Public Schools

April, 2013

LIEP 1

Dual Language

Developmental

Bilingual Program

(Additive

Bilingualism)

Dual Language

Two-Way Immersion

Program

(Additive

Bilingualism)

Transitional Bilingual

Education Program

(Subtractive

Bilingualism)

Heritage Language

Program

English as a Second

Language [ESL]

Content-based ESL

ESL Co-Teaching

Instructional

Key Features

Language(s)

LIEPs that utilize two languages for instruction

English and student’s heritage

Designed to help non-English speakers learn English as well as maintain and improve their native or heritage language

Notes

Students become bilingual, biliterate and bicultural in a way that honors their need to simultaneously identify and communicate with language

English and another language focus on student’s primary (non-

English) language focus on student’s primary (non-

English) language skills.

Comprised of approximately 50 % native

English speakers and 50% native speakers of the target language.

Both groups of students become bilingual, biliterate and bicultural.

Presented in the ELLs' native language for at least 2 or 3 years after which time

ELLs receive all-English instruction.

Typically targets non-native English speakers with weak literacy skills in first language their heritage or home culture and with the mainstream culture they live and will work in.

Content instruction is provided both in English and in the target language.

Primary purpose is to facilitate students’ transition to an all-English instructional program while receiving academic subject instruction in the native language to the extent necessary.

The goal is building literacy in two languages.

English

English

Sheltered Instruction English

Newcomer Program English

English

LIEPS that utilize English for instruction

Native language support may also be provided .

A program of techniques, methodology and special curriculum designed to teach

English reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills to ELLs.

Uses instructional materials, learning tasks, and classroom techniques from academic content areas as the vehicle for developing language, content, cognitive and study skills.

Adapts academic instruction in English to make it understandable to students’ levels of English proficiency.

Separate, relatively self-contained educational interventions to meet the academic and transitional needs of newly- arrived immigrants.

Shared, collaborative teacher planning time so that teachers that can implement strategies that integrate language acquisition, literacy, and academic content at the same time.

ESL instruction is in English with little use of students’ native languages. This may occur as a pull-out session or a scheduled class time.

Instruction is in English with little use of students’ native languages. This may occur as a pull-out session or a scheduled class time.

Can be implemented by content and ESL teachers in English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and other subjects.

Students usually attend these programs for a very limited time before they enter an ESL program. Services may be provided at a special site or may be provided at the school site.

Caution: Co-Teaching is NOT supplying an

ESL teacher who enters the class and assists individual students.

Requires professional development for both teachers so that grade level and developmentally appropriate teaching from both the ESL and content teacher occurs.

1 All ELLs must have an LEP Plan that includes students’ proficiency level descriptions, instructional modifications, assigned state test

accommodations, and LIEP services to be provided.


APPENDIX II SAMPLE North Carolina Home Language Survey Form

August 2008 http://esl.ncwiseowl.org/resources/documents/ to download a copy

Directions:

1. Parents/guardians of all new students (including preschool and Kindergarten) complete this form at the time of enrollment and record all information requested. Provide interpreting services whenever necessary.

2. Ensure that all questions on the form are completed. Determine which ESL Program staff will review the responses, interview the parent as necessary, and/or observe the student to determine the home language. If the parent lists more than one language other than English, the reviewer must determine which one is the child’s home language for data collection purposes and document it on this form.

3. If it is determined that a student’s home language is other than English, administer the English language proficiency test.

Follow your protocol to collect and document the student’s scores.

4. Place the original form in the student’s cumulative folder.

First Name:

Student Information

Last Name:

Country of Birth: Date of Birth:

Current School:

Date first enrolled in any U.S. school (Private or

Public, but not PreK) Indicate if the student left the

U.S. for a school year(s):

School Enrollment Date: Current Grade:

Questions for Parents/Guardians* Parent Response

What is the first language the student learned to speak?

What language does the student speak most often?

What language is most often spoken in the home?

Notes:

*******************************For Office Use Only*****************************

Person Reviewing this Survey : ____________________________

Determination

The student’s home language

If the language is other than English, the English language proficiency test should be administered

Language:

Administer the English Language

Proficiency Test

Circle: Yes or No


APPENDIX III Home Language Survey Process

North Carolina Procedures for the Identification of Limited English Proficient

Students

The North Carolina State Board of Education policy GCS-K-000 (16 NCAC 6D.0106) requires that a

Home Language Survey (HLS) be administered to all students upon initial enrollment. The HLS is used to help determine if the student is a language minority student. (The Home Language Survey Process is shown at the end of this document as Appendix A.)

HLS ADMINISTRATION

Upon initial enrollment in a local education agency (LEA), all students are guided through the Home

Language Survey process and have a completed HLS placed on file. The state has provided a sample

HLS at http://esl.ncwiseowl.org/resources/documents/, which has suggestions for the type of questions to be asked, such as:

1.

What is the first language the student learned to speak?

2.

What language does the student speak most often?

3.

What language is most often spoken in the home?

If review of the survey shows no language other than English, the student is not a language minority student. The completed HLS is filed in the student’s cumulative folder. Responses to any of the questions on the HLS indicating languages other than English should prompt the school to investigate and determine the student’s actual home language.

1

HLS INVESTIGATION

The school district Limited English Proficiency (LEP) coordinator/designee should interview the student and his/her parent/guardian to clarify the home language of the student. Some sample probing questions are:

1.

When the child was young and language was developing, what language(s) was/were spoken to the child?

2.

How is the language (other than English) used in the home?

3.

Are there other student issues? (e.g., significant health issues, academic gaps, grade retentions, special services, etc.)

Student’s Dominant Language is English

If the process shows the student’s dominant language is English, then the student is not a language minority student. The completed HLS is filed in the student’s cumulative folder.

Student’s Dominant Language is a Language Other Than English

If the investigation reveals that the dominant home language is a language other than English, that language is confirmed on the HLS. The survey is filed in the student’s cumulative folder and the student

1 Home language is the language normally used by the individual or normally used by the parents of the child or youth

.

Trained school personnel must research this information to determine and document the student’s actual home language at the time of entry into U.S. schools.


APPENDIX III (cont.) is scheduled for administration of the WIDA Access Placement Test (W-APT) ™, according to one of the three procedures described below.

HLS Completed in Another LEA

If an HLS was completed in another North Carolina public school prior to enrolling at the current school, then staff should compare the responses on the two forms for consistency. If inconsistencies are found, the staff will investigate and determine the home language and eligibility of the student for ESL services, as documented by the investigation. Keep in mind that during any investigation, the LEA retains the responsibility to ensure that the student has an equal opportunity to have his/her English language and academic needs met. If the investigation documentation indicates the student is a language minority student, and if no W-APT has been previously administered, then the student is scheduled for

W-APT administration, according to one of the three procedures described below.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR W-APT ADMINISTRATION

1.

IEP Exists (Other Student Issues Documented)

If the student is identified as a language minority student and the investigation reveals that the student has an existing Individualized Education Program (IEP), then the IEP Team, including ESL staff, reviews the IEP. The W-APT is administered with any testing accommodations documented in the student’s current IEP. The Composite Score is calculated with lowest score(s) from any inaccessible subtest(s).

If it is determined that the student was administered an English language proficiency test while enrolled in the previous school, then ESL staff must obtain test results from the other school to determine the student’s LEP status. ESL staff is to confirm the student’s LEP status in the state LEP Consolidated

Federal Data Collection (CFDC). (See Appendix B for LEP identification cut scores.)

W-APT results are reported to the IEP Team. If the student is not LEP, then the IEP Team indicates this under the “Consideration of Special Factors” in the IEP. If the student is identified as LEP, the IEP

Team determines language needs as related to the IEP (e.g., collaboration, training, materials, and native language support). The LEP identification and eligibility for testing accommodations are noted in both the IEP and LEP plan/documentation.

Once identified as limited English language proficient, the student is required by state and federal law to be annually assessed on the state identified English language proficiency test until the student meets the exit criteria. The test currently used by North Carolina for annual assessment is the Assessing

Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners or the

ACCESS for ELLs

®

. Appropriate testing accommodations for the ACCESS administration are noted in both the IEP and LEP plan/documentation.

2.

Regular Procedure (No Other Student Issues Documented)

If the student is identified as a language minority, he/she is administered the state-identified English language proficiency screener/test to determine potential LEP identification. According to State Board of Education policy GCS-A-011, to be identified as limited English proficient, students must be assessed using the W-APT. If a language minority student enrolls at the beginning of the school year, he or she must be administered all four subtests (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) of the W-APT, and the parent must be notified within thirty (30) calendar days of enrollment of the student’s eligibility for ESL services. If a language minority student enrolls after the beginning of the school year, he or she must be administered all four subtests (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) of the W-APT, and the parent


APPENDIX III (cont.) must be notified within 14 calendar days of enrollment. (Note: Kindergarten students enrolling at or during the first semester will only be administered the listening and speaking portion.)

If it is determined that the student was administered an English language proficiency test while enrolled in the previous school, then staff must obtain test results from the other school to determine the student’s

LEP status. ESL staff is to confirm the student’s LEP status in the state LEP Consolidated Federal Data

Collection (CFDC). (See Appendix B for LEP identification cut scores.)

If the student is identified as LEP based on performance on the W-APT, then English as a Second

Language (ESL) staff documents the identification and the appropriate language instructional program goals in the LEP plan/documentation. The LEP plan/documentation will also indicate appropriate instructional and testing accommodations for which the student is eligible.

Once identified as Limited English Proficient, the student is required by state and federal law to be annually assessed on the state-identified English language proficiency test until the student meets the exit criteria. The test currently used by North Carolina for annual assessment is the Assessing


ACCESS for ELLs

®

.

3.

No IEP Exists and Other Student Issues Documented

If the student is identified as a language minority student and the investigation reveals other student issues (e.g., a history of special services, grade retention, significant health issues, etc.), the W-APT is administered. Any accessibility issues are documented in the student’s cumulative folder along with the results. The Composite Score is calculated with lowest score(s) from any inaccessible subtest(s).

If it is determined that the student was administered an English language proficiency test while enrolled in the previous school, then ESL staff must obtain test results from the other school to determine the student’s LEP status. ESL staff is to confirm the student’s LEP status in the state LEP Consolidated

Federal Data Collection (CFDC). (See Appendix B for LEP identification cut scores.)

If the student is not identified as LEP based on the W-APT results, staff will record this in the student’s cumulative folder. If the student is identified as LEP, a Student Support Team, including ESL staff, reviews information and makes recommendations concerning appropriate interventions. The Student

Support Team documents the identification and the eligibility for appropriate testing accommodations.

The LEP plan/documentation will also indicate the appropriate language instructional program. This team will monitor the student’s progress. If the student is subsequently referred and identified as eligible for special education under the IDEA, the IEP Team, including ESL staff , will determine the language needs as related to the student’s IEP and documented in the IEP and the LEP plan/documentation.

Once identified as limited English language proficient, the student is required by state and federal law to be annually assessed on the state identified English language proficiency test until the student meets the exit criteria. The test currently used by North Carolina for annual assessment is the Assessing


ACCESS for ELLs

®

. If the student is referred and identified as eligible for special education under the

IDEA, then appropriate testing accommodations for the ACCESS administration are noted in the IEP and LEP Plan/documentation.


APPENDIX III (cont.)

Appendix A


APPENDIX III (cont.)

Appendix B

North Carolina LEP Identification Criteria

Grade

Kindergarten 1 st

Semester

Kindergarten 2 nd

Semester

Grade 2 -Grade 12

1 st and 2 nd semester

W-APT Identification Criteria for Students with a Home Language other than English

Domains

W-APT Score Identifies Student as LEP

W-APT Score Indicating Student is

NOT LEP

Less than 27 27 or Higher Speaking

& Listening

All Four Listening & Speaking 27 or higher and

Reading 14 or higher and Writing 17 or higher

Grade 1 1 st Semester All Four

Grade 1 2 nd Semester All Four

All Four

Listening & Speaking Less than 27 or

Reading less than 14 or Writing less than

17

Listening & Speaking Less than 27 or

Reading less than 14 or Writing less than

17

Composite less than 5.0 or

Any domain less than 5.0

Composite less than 5.0 or

Any domain less than 5.0

Listening & Speaking 27 or higher and

Reading 14 or higher and Writing 17 or higher

Composite 5.0 or higher and

No domain less than 5.0

Composite 5.0 or higher and

No domain less than 5.0


APPENDIX IV GCS-K-000

NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Policy Manual

Policy Identification

Priority: High Student Performance

Category: Second Languages

Policy ID Number: GCS-K-000

Policy Title : 16 NCAC 6D.0106 Policy establishing guidelines for Limited English Proficient Programs

Current Policy Date: 06/01/1996

Other Historical Information: Previous board dates: 09/07/1995

Statutory Reference:

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) Reference Number and Category: 16 NCAC 6D .0106

.

0106 LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PROGRAMS

(a)Each superintendent or his delegate shall:

(1) identify resources available to serve limited English proficient students;

(2) coordinate programs and services to these students and their parents in the local school administrative unit;

(3) report to the SBE information concerning the identification, placement, and educational progress of these students; and

(4) report funding needs for the provision of services to these students to the SBE.

(b) LEAs shall report annually to the SBE information including but not limited to

the number of students whose primary home language is other than English,

the number of limited English proficient students identified and receiving services,

the nature of the services,

the number of limited English proficient students receiving special education services and services for the academically gifted, and

data required to be reported to the U. S. Department of Education.

(c) A home language survey shall be administered to every student at the time of enrollment and maintained in the student's permanent record. LEAs shall then identify and assess every limited English proficient student who needs assistance in order to have access to the unit's instructional programs. Each LEA which identifies limited English proficient students who need assistance shall adopt an effective method of determining the students' current level of English proficiency in order to determine what types of assistance are needed. The method used may be a combination of the following, unless some other method can be effectively substituted:

(1) teacher observations;

(2) teacher interview;

(3) achievement tests;


APPENDIX IV (cont.)

(4) review of student records;

(5) parent information;

(6) proficiency tests;

(7) English as a second language teacher referral;

(8) student course grades;

(9) teacher referral or recommendation;

(10) criterion-referenced tests;

(11) grade retention or deficiency report;

(12) informal assessment or screening;

(13) portfolio-based assessment; and

(14) alternative assessments such as cloze and dictation.

(d) LEAs shall adopt a program or programs for limited English proficient students who need assistance which have a reasonable chance of allowing students to progress in school. The program may be one of the following unless some other method or process can be effectively substituted:

(1) English as a second language (ESL);

(2) bilingual education;

(3) programs which provide neither instruction in the native language nor direct instruction in ESL but which adapt instruction to meet the needs of these students.

Program entry criteria shall be developed which take into account the student's educational background,

English language proficiency, native language proficiency, and content area knowledge. LEAs shall conduct a program evaluation annually.

(e) LEAs shall adopt appropriate evaluative standards for measuring the progress of limited English proficient students in school. In order to determine when students no longer need assistance, the LEA shall determine the content knowledge and language skills necessary for successful functioning in the regular classroom.

Then, multiple instruments as well as teacher judgment may be used to evaluate English listening and speaking skills, English literacy skills, and content area knowledge. The students shall not be maintained in alternative language programs longer than necessary based on program exit criteria but shall be monitored after exiting such programs for a minimum of six months and additional academic and English language support shall be provided if the students begin to have difficulty.

(f)LEAs shall monitor the progress of limited English proficient students in English proficiency and in the BEP.

When a limited English proficient student is not making progress in school, the LEA shall conduct an evaluation of the student's program and make modification as needed.

(g) Limited English proficient students shall participate in the statewide testing programs in accordance with 16

NCAC 6D .0301.

(h) LEAs shall promote the involvement of parents of students of limited English proficiency in the educational program of their children. LEAs shall notify national origin minority group parents of school activities which are called to the attention of other parents and these notices shall be provided in the home language if feasible.

(i)LEAs shall ensure that limited English proficient students are not assigned to or excluded from special education programs because of their limited English language proficiency. Evaluation, placement, and notification to parents of students with special needs shall be conducted in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part

300.


APPENDIX IV (cont.)

(j) LEAs shall ensure that limited English proficient students are not categorically excluded from programs for the academically gifted and other specialized programs or support services such as guidance and counseling due to limited English proficiency.

(k)LEAs shall ensure that limited English proficient students are educated in the least segregative manner based on the educational needs of the student and these students shall be included in all aspects of the regular school program in which they can perform satisfactorily.

(l)The department shall monitor the progress of LEAs in providing programs to all limited English proficient students using the same procedures and standards as provided in Title I - Helping Disadvantaged Children

Meet High Standards, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.

(m) The department shall make available a list to all LEAs of teachers licensed in English as a Second

Language (ESL). ESL training and add-on

ESL licensure for teachers currently licensed in areas other than ESL is an appropriate strategy to obtain qualified staff.

(n) Each LEA may consider joint agreements with other LEAs to provide programs to limited English proficient students.

(o) Each LEA may coordinate services with those available at local community colleges in order to maximize efficient delivery of services to

limited English proficient students and their parents.

(p) The department shall administer the Teacher Education Program Approval process so as to ensure that all participants have an opportunity to gain an understanding of and develop strategies for addressing the educational needs of limited English proficient students. The Department shall work with IHEs to expand

English as a Second Language teacher training programs.

History Note: Authority G.S. 115C-12(9)c.; N.C. Constitution, Article IX, Sec. 5; 20 U.S.C. §1703; Eff. June 1,

1996.


APPENDIX V Selected OCR Guidance

Office of Civil Rights

Policy Update on Schools' Obligations

Toward National Origin Minority Students With Limited-English Proficiency

http://www.ed.gov/print/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/lau1991.html

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

MEMORANDUM

SEP 27 1991

TO: OCR Senior Staff

FROM: Michael L. Williams, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

SUBJECT: Policy Update on Schools' Obligations Toward National Origin Minority Students With Limited-

English Proficiency (LEP students)

This policy update is primarily designed for use in conducting Lau

[1]

compliance reviews -- that is, compliance reviews designed to determine whether schools are complying with their obligation under the regulation implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide any alternative language programs necessary to ensure that national origin minority students with limited-English proficiency (LEP students) have meaningful access to the schools' programs. The policy update adheres to OCR's past determination that Title VI does not mandate any particular program of instruction for LEP students . In determining whether the recipient is operating a program for LEP students that meets Title VI requirements, OCR will consider whether: (1) the program the recipient chooses is recognized as sound by some experts in the field or is considered a legitimate experimental strategy; (2) the programs and practices used by the school system are reasonably calculated to implement effectively the educational theory adopted by the school; and (3) the program succeeds, after a legitimate trial, in producing results indicating that students' language barriers are actually being overcome.

The policy update also discusses some difficult issues that frequently arise in Lau investigations. An appendix to the policy discusses the continuing validity of OCR's use of the Castaneda

[2] standard to determine compliance with the Title VI regulation.

This document should be read in conjunction with the December 3, 1985, guidance document entitled, "The

Office for Civil Rights' Title VI Language Minority Compliance Procedures," and the May 1970 memorandum to school districts entitled, "Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of National origin,"

35 Fed. Reg. 11595 (May 1970 Memorandum). It does not supersede either document.

[3]

These two documents are attached for your convenience.

Part I of the policy update provides additional guidance for applying the May 1970 and December 1985 memoranda that describe OCR's Title VI Lau policy. In Part I, more specific standards are enunciated for staffing requirements, exit criteria and program evaluation. Policy issues related to special education programs, gifted/talented programs, and other special programs are also discussed. Part II of the policy update describes

OCR's policy with regard to segregation of LEP students.


APPENDIX V (cont.)

The appendix to this policy update discusses the use of the Castaneda standard and the way in which Federal courts have viewed the relationship between Title VI and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.

With the possible exception of Castaneda, which provides a common sense analytical framework for analyzing a district's program for LEP students that has been adopted by OCR, and Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, which applied the Castaneda principles to the Denver Public Schools, most court decisions in this area stop short of providing OCR and recipient institutions with specific guidance. The policy standards enunciated in this document attempt to combine the most definitive court guidance with OCR's practical legal and policy experience in the field. In that regard, the issues discussed herein, and the policy decisions reached, reflect a careful and thorough examination of Lau case investigations carried out by OCR's regional offices over the past few years, comments from the regional offices on a draft version of the policy, and lengthy discussions on the issues with some of OCR's most experienced investigators. Specific recommendations from participants at the

Investigative Strategies Workshop have also been considered and incorporated where appropriate.

I. Additional guidance for applying the May 1970 and December 1985 memoranda.

The December 1985 memorandum listed two areas to be examined in determining whether a recipient was in compliance with Title VI: (1) the need for an alternative language program for LEP students; and (2) the adequacy of the program chosen by the recipient. Issues related to the adequacy of the program chosen by the recipient will be discussed first, as they arise more often in Lau investigations. Of course, the determination of whether a recipient is in violation of Title VI will require a finding that language minority students are in need of an alternative language program in order to participate effectively in the recipient's educational program.

A. Adequacy of Program

This section of the memorandum provides additional guidance for applying the three-pronged Castaneda approach as a standard for determining the adequacy of a recipient's efforts to provide equal educational opportunities for LEP students.

1. Soundness of educational approach

Castaneda requires districts to use educational theories that are recognized as sound by some experts in the field, or at least theories that are recognized as legitimate educational strategies. 648 F. 2d at 1009. Some approaches that fall under this category include transitional bilingual education, bilingual/bicultural education, structured immersion, developmental bilingual education, and English as a Second Language (ESL). A district that is using any of these approaches has complied with the first requirement of Castaneda. If a district is using a different approach, it is in compliance with Castaneda if it can show that the approach is considered sound by some experts in the field or that it is considered a legitimate experimental strategy.

2. Proper Implementation

Castaneda requires that "the programs and practices actually used by a school system [be] reasonably calculated to implement effectively the educational theory adopted by the school." 648 F. 2d at 1010. Some problematic implementation issues have included staffing requirements for programs, exit criteria, and access to programs such as gifted/talented programs. These issues are discussed below.



Staffing requirements

Districts have an obligation to provide the staff necessary to implement their chosen program properly within a reasonable period of time. Many states and school districts have established formal qualifications for teachers working in a program for limited -Englishproficient students. When formal qualifications have been established, and when a district generally requires its teachers in other subjects to meet formal requirements, a recipient must either hire formally qualified teachers for LEP students or require that teachers already on staff work toward attaining those formal qualifications. See Castaneda, 648 F. 2d at 1013. A recipient may not in effect relegate LEP students to second-class status by indefinitely allowing teachers without formal qualifications to teach them while requiring teachers of non-LEP students to meet formal qualifications. See 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(ii).

[4]

Whether the district's teachers have met any applicable qualifications established by the state or district does not conclusively show that they are qualified to teach in an alternative language program. Some states have no requirements beyond requiring that a teacher generally be certified, and some states have established requirements that are not rigorous enough to ensure that their teachers have the skills necessary to carry out the district's chosen educational program.

[5] Discussed below are some minimum qualifications for teachers in alternative language programs.

If a recipient selects a bilingual program for its LEP students, at a minimum, teachers of bilingual classes should be able to speak, read, and write both languages, and should have received adequate instruction in the methods of bilingual education. In addition, the recipient should be able to show that it has determined that its bilingual teachers have these skills. See Keyes, 576 F. Supp. at 1516-17 (criticizing district for designating teachers as bilingual based on an oral interview and for not using standardized tests to determine whether bilingual teachers could speak and write both languages); cf. Castaneda, 648 F. 2d at 1013 ("A bilingual education program, however sound in theory, is clearly unlikely to have a significant impact on the language barriers confronting limited English speaking school children, if the teachers charged with the day-to-day responsibility for educating these children are termed 'qualified' despite the fact that they operate in the classroom under their own unremedied language disability"). In addition, bilingual teachers should be fully qualified to teach their subject.

If a recipient uses a method other than bilingual education (such as ESL or structured immersion), the recipient should have ascertained that teachers who use those methods have been adequately trained in them. This training can take the form of in-service training, formal college coursework, or a combination of the two. In addition, as with bilingual teachers, a recipient should be able to show that it has determined that its teachers have mastered the skills necessary to teach effectively in a program for LEP students. In making this determination, the recipient should use validated evaluative instruments -- that is, tests that have been shown to accurately measure the skills in question. The recipient should also have the teacher's classroom performance evaluated by someone familiar with the method being used.

ESL teachers need not be bilingual if the evidence shows that they can teach effectively without bilingual skills. Compare Teresa P., 724 F. Supp. at 709 (finding that LEP students can be taught English effectively by monolingual teachers), with Keyes, 576 F. Supp. at 1517 ("The record shows that in the secondary schools there are designated ESL teachers who have no second language capability. There is no basis for assuming that the policy objectives of the [transitional bilingual education] program are being met in such schools").

To the extent that the recipient's chosen educational theory requires native language support, and if the program relies on bilingual aides to provide such support, the recipient should be able to demonstrate that it has determined that its aides have the appropriate level of skill in speaking, reading, and writing both languages.

[6] In addition, the bilingual aides should be working under the direct supervision of certificated classroom teachers.

Students should not be getting instruction from aides rather than teachers. 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(1)(ii); see

Castaneda, 648 F.2d at 1013 ("The use of Spanish speaking aides may be an appropriate interim measure, but such aides cannot. . .take the place of qualified bilingual teachers").



Recipients frequently assert that their teachers are unqualified because qualified teachers are not available. If a recipient has shown that it has unsuccessfully tried to hire qualified teachers, it must provide adequate training to teachers already on staff to comply with the Title VI regulation. See Castaneda, 648 F. 2d at 1013. Such training must take place as soon as possible. For example, recipients sometimes require teachers to work toward obtaining a credential as a condition of employment in a program for limited-English-proficient students. This requirement is not, in itself, sufficient to meet the recipient's obligations under the Title VI regulation. To ensure that LEP students have access to the recipient's programs while teachers are completing their formal training, the recipient must ensure that those teachers receive sufficient interim training to enable them to function adequately in the classroom, as well as any assistance from bilingual aides that may be necessary to carry out the recipient's interim program.

Exit Criteria for Language Minority LEP Students

Once students have been placed in an alternative language program, they must be provided with services until they are proficient enough in English to participate meaningfully in the regular educational program. Some factors to examine in determining whether formerly LEP students are able to participate meaningfully in the regular educational program include: (1) whether they are able to keep up with their non-LEP peers in the regular educational program; (2) whether they are able to participate successfully in essentially all aspects of the school's curriculum without the use of simplified English materials; and (3) whether their retention in-grade and dropout rates are similar to those of their non-LEP peers.

Generally, a recipient will have wide latitude in determining criteria for exiting students from an alternative language program, but there are a few basic standards that should be met. First, exit criteria should be based on objective standards, such as standardized test scores, and the district should be able to explain why it has decided that students meeting those standards will be able to participate meaningfully in the regular classroom. Second, students should not be exited from the LEP program unless they can read, write, and comprehend English well enough to participate meaningfully in the recipient's program. Exit criteria that simply test a student's oral language skills are inadequate. Keyes, 576 F. Supp. at 1518 (noting importance of testing reading and writing skills as well as oral language skills). Finally, alternative programs cannot be "dead end" tracks to segregate national origin minority students.

Many districts design their LEP programs to temporarily emphasize English over other subjects. While schools with such programs may discontinue special instruction in English once LEP students become English-proficient, schools retain an obligation to provide assistance necessary to remedy academic deficits that may have occurred in other subjects while the student was focusing on learning English. Castaneda, 648 F. 2d at 1011.

Special Education Programs

OCR's overall policy on this issue, as initially announced in the May 1970 memorandum, is that school systems may not assign students to special education programs on the basis of criteria that essentially measure and evaluate English language skills. The additional legal requirements imposed by Section 504 also must be considered when conducting investigations on this issue. This policy update does not purport to address the numerous Title VI and Section 504 issues related to the placement of limited English-proficient students in special education programs. Although OCR staff are very familiar with Section 504 requirements, additional guidance on the relationship between Section 504 and Lau issues that arise under Title VI may be helpful. A separate policy update will be prepared on those issues.

Pending completion of that policy update, Lau compliance reviews should continue to include an inquiry into the placement of limited-English- proficient students into special education programs where there are indications that

LEP students may be inappropriately placed in such programs, or where special education programs provided


APPENDIX V (cont.) for LEP students do not address their inability to speak or understand English. In addition, compliance reviews should find out whether recipients have policies of "no double services": that is, refusing to provide both alternative language services and Special education to students who need them. Such inquiries would entail obtaining basic data and information during the course of a Lau compliance review regarding placement of LEP students into special education programs. If data obtained during the inquiry indicates a potential problem regarding placement of LEP students into special education, the regional office may want to consult headquarters about expanding the time frames for the review to ensure that it can devote the time and staff resources to conduct a thorough investigation of these issues. Alternatively, the region could schedule a compliance review of the special education program at a later date. In small to medium-sized school districts, regional offices may be able to gather sufficient data to make a finding regarding the special education program as part of the overall Lau review.

Gifted/Talented Programs and Other Specialized Programs

The exclusion of LEP students from specialized programs such as gifted/talented programs may have the effect of excluding students from a recipient's programs on the basis of national origin, in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(2), unless the exclusion is educationally justified by the needs of the particular student or by the nature of the specialized program.

LEP students cannot be categorically excluded from gifted/talented or other specialized programs. If a recipient has a process for locating and identifying gifted/talented students, it must also locate and identify gifted/talented

LEP students who could benefit from the program.

In determining whether a recipient has improperly excluded LEP students from its gifted/talented or other specialized programs, OCR will carefully examine the recipient's explanation for the lack of participation by LEP students. OCR will also consider whether the recipient has conveyed these reasons to students and parents.

Educational justifications for excluding a particular LEP student from a specialized program should be comparable to those used in excluding a non-LEP peer and include: (1) that time for the program would unduly hinder his/her participation in an alternative language program; and (2) that the specialized program itself requires proficiency in English language skills for meaningful participation.

Unless the particular gifted/talented program or program component requires proficiency in English language skills for meaningful participation, the recipient must ensure that evaluation and testing procedures do not screen out LEP students because of their limited-English proficiency. To the extent feasible, tests used to place students in specialized programs should not be of a type that the student's limited proficiency in English will prevent him/her from qualifying for a program for which they would otherwise be qualified.

3. Program Evaluation

In return for allowing schools flexibility in choosing and implementing an alternative language program,

Castaneda requires recipients to modify their programs if they prove to be unsuccessful after a legitimate trial. As a practical matter, recipients cannot comply with this requirement without periodically evaluating their programs.

If a recipient does not periodically evaluate or modify its programs, as appropriate, it is in violation of the Title

VI regulation unless its program is successful. Cf. Keyes, 576 F. Supp. at 1518 ("The defendant's program is also flawed by the failure to adopt adequate tests to measure the results of what the district is doing. . . . The lack of an adequate measurement of the effects of such service [to LEP students] is a failure to take reasonable action to implement the transitional bilingual policy").



Generally, "success" is measured in terms of whether the program is achieving the particular goals the recipient has established for the program. If the recipient has established no particular goals, the program is successful if its participants are over-coming their language barriers sufficiently well and sufficiently promptly to participate meaningfully in the recipient's programs.

B. Need for a formal program

Recipients should have procedures in place for identifying and assessing LEP students. As the December 1985 memorandum stated, if language minority students in need of an alternative language program are not being served, the recipient is in violation of Title VI.

The type of program necessary to adequately identify students in need of services will vary widely depending on the demographics of the recipients' schools. In districts with few LEP students, at a minimum, school teachers and administrators should be informed of their obligations to provide necessary alternative language services to students in need of such services, and of their obligation to seek any assistance necessary to comply with this requirement. Schools with a relatively large number of LEP students would be expected to have in place a more formal program.

Title VI does not require an alternative program if, without such a program, LEP students have equal and meaningful access to the district's programs. It is extremely rare for an alternative program that is inadequate under Castaneda to provide LEP students with such access. If a recipient contends that its LEP students have meaningful access to the district's programs, despite the lack of an alternative program or the presence of a program that is inadequate under Castaneda, some factors to consider in evaluating this claim are: (1) whether

LEP students are performing as well as their non-LEP peers in the district, unless some other comparison seems more appropriate;

[7]

(2) whether LEP students are successfully participating in essentially all aspects of the school's curriculum without the use of simplified English materials; and (3) whether their dropout and retentionin-grade rates are comparable to those of their non-LEP peers. Cf. Keyes, 576 F. Supp. at 1519 (high dropout rates and use of "levelled English" materials indicate that district is not providing equal educational opportunity for LEP students). If LEP students have equal access to the district's programs under the above standards, the recipient is not in violation of Title VI even if it has no program or its program does not meet the Castaneda standard. If application of the above standards shows that LEP students do not have equal access to the district's programs, and the district has no alternative language program, the district is in violation of Title VI. If the district is implementing an alternative program, it then will be necessary to apply the three-pronged Castaneda approach to determine-whether the program complies with Title VI.

II. Segregation of LEP students

Providing special services to LEP students will usually have the effect of segregating students by national origin during at least part of the school day. Castaneda states that this segregation is permissible because "the benefits which would accrue to [LEP] students by remedying the language barriers which impede their ability to realize their academic potential in an English language educational institution may outweigh the adverse effects of such segregation." 648 F. 2d at 998.

OCR's inquiry in this area should focus on whether the district has carried out its chosen program in the least segregative manner consistent with achieving its stated goals. In other words, OCR will not examine whether

ESL, transitional bilingual education, developmental bilingual education, bilingual/bicultural education, structured immersion, or any other theory adopted by the district is the least segregative program for providing alternative language services to LEP students. Instead, OCR will examine whether the degree of segregation in the program is necessary to achieve the program's educational goals.



The following practices could violate the anti-segregation provisions of the Title VI regulation: (1) segregating

LEP students for both academic and nonacademic subjects, such as recess, physical education, art and music;

[8] and (2) maintaining students in an alternative language program longer than necessary to achieve the district's goals for the program.

Use of the Castaneda standard to determine compliance with Title VI.

In determining whether a recipient's program for LEP students complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, OCR has used the standard set forth in Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981). Under this standard, a program for LEP students is acceptable if: (1) "[the] school system is pursuing a program informed by an educational theory recognized as sound by some experts in the field or, at least, deemed a legitimate experimental strategy;" (2) "the programs and practices actually used by [the] school system are reasonably calculated to implement effectively the educational theory adopted by the school;" and (3) the school's program succeeds, after a legitimate trial, in producing results indicating that the language barriers confronting students are actually being overcome." Id. at 1009-10.

The Castaneda court based its standard on the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), P.L. No. 93-

380, codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1720, rather than on Title VI or its implementing regulation (20 C.F.R. Part

100). The relevant portion of the EEOA (20 U.S.C. § 1703(f)) is very similar to OCR's May 1970 memorandum describing the obligations of districts toward limited-English-proficient students under Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1974.

[9] In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786 (1974), the Supreme Court upheld OCR's authority to establish the policies set forth in the May 1970 memorandum .

For Attachments and additional notes in the Appendix: http://www.ed.gov/print/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/lau1991.html


APPENDIX VI PRC 104 Federal Allotment Formula

TITLE III - LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

PROGRAM REPORT CODE: 104

UNIFORM CHART OF ACCOUNTS CODE: XXXX-104-XXX

CFDA# 84.365A

TYPE: Dollars

TERM: Up to 27 months

PURPOSE:

To help ensure that children who are Limited English Proficient (LEP), including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency, develop high levels of academic attainment in English and meet the same State academic content and student achievement standards of non-LEP children, and to assist LEAs/charter schools in building their capacity to establish, implement, and sustain language instructional educational programs and programs of English language development for LEP children.

ELIGIBILITY:

LEAs/charter schools having a sufficient number of Limited English Proficient students are eligible for funding.

Application must be approved prior to the LEA/charter school receiving the allotment.

Applications are due in May of each year.

FORMULA: Funds are allocated on the basis of an annual headcount of the LEA's/charter school's LEP students, including immigrant students and youth.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS:

1. Any LEA/charter school earning less than $10,000 based on the formula must enter a consortium with other

LEAs/charter schools.

For any new consortia created as of 2006: No more than five LEAs are allowed in one consortium. Contact program administrators for the state consortium guidelines, as well as consortium guidance from the

Office of English Language Acquisition at the US Dept. of Education.

2. If an eligible LEA/charter school is a member of a consortium receiving an award under PRC 104, the

LEA/charter school’s PRC 104 award shall be allotted to the fiscal agent for the consortium and the sum total of awarded funds shall be used to benefit all of the members of the consortium.

3. Each project can be awarded funds for a period of time beginning July 1st and ending September 30th the following year. The Tydings Amendment can extend the grant period to 27 months by allowing unexpended funds as of September 30th to carry over. Funds are potentially available to LEAs/charter schools for 27 months, provided a timely project application is submitted each year.

4. Program Administrators will notify the School Allotments Section of any LEA/charter school that does not have an approved budget by October 31st. After this notification, funds carried forward will be reduced from the

LEA’s / charter school’s budget.

5. Funds must be used to supplement and not supplant existing resources.


APPENDIX VI (cont.)

6. Administration expenditures are limited to 2% of total expenditures.

7. One-day or short-term workshops and conferences are not permitted unless the activity is a part of an established comprehensive professional development program for an individual teacher.

8. Reallocation of funds: Funding for current year projects not allocated will be redistributed to eligible units based on the current formula or program needs as determined by grant requirements by February.

9. Any un-allotted funds created from previous years will be used to cover allowable expenditures for current year projects until the previous years' funds have been used.

Source: Allotment Policy Manual FY 2010-11 http://dpi.state.nc.us/docs/fbs/allotments/general/2010-11policymanual.pdf pp 67-68


APPENDIX VII PRC 111 Federal Allotment Formula

TITLE III - LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SIGNIFICANT INCREASE)



CFDA# 84.365A

TYPE: Dollars

TERM: Up to 27 months

PURPOSE: To provide funds for enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth designed to assist them in achieving in elementary and secondary schools, including activities designed to assist parents in becoming active participants in the education of their children and activities designed to support personnel to provide services to immigrant children and youth.

Also provides funds for additional basic instructional services that are directly attributable to the presence of immigrant children and youth.

ELIGIBILITY:

LEAs/charter schools: LEAs/charter schools having a significant increase in the percentage of immigrant students enrolled as compared to the average of the two preceding fiscal years.

Application must be approved prior to the LEA/charter school receiving the allotment.

Applications are due in May of each year.

FORMULA:

Funds are allocated on the basis of an annual headcount of the LEA/charter schools immigrant students.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS:

1. If an eligible LEA/charter school is a member of a consortium receiving an award under (PRC 104) and also receives an award under Title III– Significant Increase (PRC 111), the significant increase funds shall be allotted to the specific LEA. The LEA recipient may choose to expend PRC 111 funds only for their LEA OR to combine their awarded funds to benefit all the members of the consortium. The LEA and/or consortium Title III

Application(s) must reflect how the funds will be expended.

2. Each project can be awarded funds for a period of time beginning July 1st and ending September 30th the following year. The Tydings Amendment can extend the grant period to 27 months by allowing unexpended funds as of September 30th to carry over. Funds are potentially available to LEAs/charter schools for 27 months, provided a project is submitted each year.

3. LEA must be able to show how PRC 111 funding provides enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth.

4. Program Administrators will notify the School Allotments Section of any LEA / charter school that does not have an approved budget by October 31st. After this notification, funds carried forward will be reduced from the

LEA’s / charter school’s budget.

5. Reallocation of funds: Funding for current year projects not allocated will be redistributed to eligible units based on the current formula or program needs as determined by grant requirements by February.


APPENDIX VII (cont.)

6. Any un-allotted funds created from previous years will be used to cover allowable expenditures for current year projects until the previous years' funds have been used.

7. Funds must be used to supplement not supplant existing resources.

Source: Allotment Policy Manual FY 2010-11 http://dpi.state.nc.us/docs/fbs/allotments/general/2010-11policymanual.pdf pp 69-70


APPENDIX VIII PRC 054 State Allotment Formula

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY



STATUTORY REFERENCE: HB 1473, Section 7.9 (a)

TYPE: Dollars

TERM: July 1 through June 30

PURPOSE: To provide additional funding to LEAs/charter schools with students who have limited proficiency in English.

ELIGIBILITY:

Eligible LEAs/charter schools must have at least 20 students with limited English proficiency

(based on a 3-year weighted average headcount), or at least 2 1/2% of the ADM of the

LEA/charter school. Funding is provided for up to 10.6% of ADM.

FORMULA: Calculate 3-Year Average Headcount

Most current years available weighted twice (50%)

Two previous years weighted once (25%)

Base Allocation

Each eligible LEA/charter school receives the minimum of 1 teacher assistant position.

1. 50% of the funds (after calculating the base) will be distributed based on the concentration of limited English proficient students within the LEA.

2. 50% of the funds (after calculating the base) will be distributed based on the weighted 3-year average headcount.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS:

1. The funds shall be used to supplement local current expense funds and shall not supplant local current expense funds.

2. Funds allotted for Limited English Proficiency must be expended only for classroom teachers, teacher assistants, tutors, textbooks, classroom materials / instructional supplies / equipment, transportation costs, and staff development needed to serve limited English proficient students.

3. Funds may be transferred with no restrictions for FY 2009-2010 and FY 2010-2011 only by submitting an

ABC Transfer Form.

Source: Allotment Policy Manual FY 2010-11 http://dpi.state.nc.us/docs/fbs/allotments/general/2010-11policymanual.pdf p40


APPENDIX IX Supplement Not Supplant Final Letter 10-2-08_2

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of English Language Acquisition are issuing this guidance to provide States with information on several funding issues, including “supplement not supplant” requirements, under Title III of the ESEA.

This guidance represents the Department’s current thinking on these issues. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any other person. Furthermore, this guidance does not impose any requirements beyond those required under applicable law and regulations. If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please email the

Department at oela@ed.gov or write to us at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Office of

English Language Acquisition, Lyndon Baines Johnson Building, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 5C-132,

Washington, DC 20202-6510.

Supplement Not Supplant Provision of Title III of the ESEA

Section 3115(g) of Title III of the ESEA (hereafter “Title III”) provides as follows:

SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT -- Federal funds made available under this subpart shall be used so as to supplement the level of Federal, State, and local public funds that, in the absence of such availability, would have been expended for programs for limited English proficient children and immigrant children and youth and in no case to supplant such Federal, State, and local public funds.

In practice, the prohibition against supplanting under Title III means that recipients may not use those funds to pay for services that, in the absence of Title III funds, would be necessary to be provided by other Federal, or

State, or local funds. 1

While the Department recognizes that, to date, some States may have interpreted the provision above as not applying to funds the State is able to retain for State-level activities under section 3111(b)(2), it is the

Department’s interpretation of the law that the supplement not supplant provision of Title III applies to both funds retained for State activities – including the professional development, planning and evaluation, technical assistance, and providing recognition activities described in section 3111(b)(2) – and Title III funds expended by subgrantees.

OMB Circular A-133, which offers general guidance on the application of supplement not supplant provisions, explains that, generally, a supplanting violation is presumed when an institution uses Federal funds to provide services that it is required to make available under other Federal, State, or local laws. See the 2008 Circular A–

133 Compliance Supplement which, in accordance with 73 Fed. Reg. 32059 (June 5, 2008), is available at the following Internet address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133_compliance/08/ed.doc

Supplanting and Provision of Language Instruction Educational Programs

States, districts, and schools are required to provide core language instruction educational programs and services for limited English proficient (LEP) students. This requirement is established based on Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, and its implementing regulations, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States

(including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lau v. Nichols), and based on other significant case law (including

Castaneda v. Pickard), the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, and other Federal, State, and local laws.

Therefore, the use of State or subgrantee Title III funds to provide core language instruction educational programs, including providing for the salaries of teachers who provide those core services for

1 Title I, Part A of the ESEA (hereafter “Title I”) also includes a similar “supplement not supplant” provision in section 1120A(b). The “supplement not supplant” provision in Title I prohibits the supplanting of non-Federal funds. A significant distinction between the “supplement not supplant” provision in Title III and the

“supplement not supplant” provision in Title I is that the Title III provision prohibits supplanting of Federal, as well as State and local, funds, whereas the Title I provision prohibits only the supplanting of State and local funds.


APPENDIX IX (cont.)

LEP students, would violate the supplement not supplant provision in section 3115(g) of the Act, as such services are required to be provided by States and districts regardless of the availability of Federal Title III funds.

Reducing State and Local Funding on the Basis of the Amount of Title III Funds

A Local Educational Agency (LEA) is Eligible to Receive

The Department has encountered situations in which a State proposed to implement a law to reduce the amount of State aid available to local educational agencies (LEAs) for implementing language instruction educational programs for LEP students based on the amount of Title III funds its LEAs receive. Such statutes and policies violate Federal law. Section 9522 of the ESEA specifically prohibits a State from taking into consideration payments under any ESEA program (with the exception of Impact Aid) in determining the amount of State aid an LEA receives for the free public education of its children. Furthermore, any reduction in the amount of State funds an LEA receives to implement language instruction educational programs based on the receipt of Federal funds for its LEP population under Title III violates the non-supplanting provision of Title III.

Likewise, any efforts by an LEA or school to reduce State and local funds expended to implement language instruction educational programs serving LEP students based on the receipt of Federal Title III grant funds also violates the non-supplanting provision of Title III. In the absence of these Federal funds, LEAs would still be required to provide language instruction educational services and would need to expend funds to serve LEP students. For example, the Department has encountered numerous Title III subgrantees that, for budgetary reasons, use Title III funds to pay the salaries of their English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers. Typically,

ESL teachers provide the core language instruction educational program services and their salaries are the responsibility of States and LEAs, not the Federal Government.

As a general rule, the use of Title III funds to pay for services to LEP students that were paid for in prior years with State, local, or other Federal funds also raises a presumption of a violation of the Title III non-supplanting requirement. An LEA may be able to rebut this presumption, however, if it can demonstrate, through contemporaneous documentation, that it would not have continued to provide those services for LEP students with State, local, or other Federal funds because, for example, of budgetary constraints or competing educational priorities.

Use of Title III Funds to Develop ELP Assessments

A number of States have asked the Department to provide more specific information on the allowable uses of

Title III funds to pay for the costs of developing ELP assessments, which are required under both section

1111(b)(7) of Title I and section 3113(b)(2) of Title III of the ESEA. This section of this letter addresses this particular issue.

Generally, a State or an LEA that is a Title III subgrantee cannot – without violating the non-supplanting requirement set out in section 3115(g) – use Title III funds to pay for the costs of developing annual ELP

2

State and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs) have raised a few questions regarding supplanting issues under consolidated funding arrangements or within Title I schoolwide programs. Under section 1114 of the ESEA, an LEA that fully consolidates Title III funds with other State, local, and Federal funds as part of a schoolwide program does not, in expending Title III funds, have to meet most of the statutory requirements of that program, including the non-supplanting requirement set out in section 3115(g) of the ESEA. Each school, however, must identify the specific programs being consolidated, and the amount each program contributes to the consolidation, and maintain records that demonstrate that the schoolwide program addresses the intent and purposes of each of the Federal programs whose funds are being consolidated to support the schoolwide program. In addition, while section 3115(g) would not apply to a schoolwide program that consolidates Title III funds with other Federal funds, section 1114(a)(2)(B) establishes a specific non-supplanting requirement for schoolwide programs. Under that provision, each school operating a schoolwide program must receive all the State and local funds it would otherwise receive to operate its educational program in the absence of Title I, Part A or other

Federal education funds, “including funds needed to provide services that are required by law for…children with limited English proficiency.” The Department has recently issued non-regulatory guidance on Title I fiscal issues, including on the consolidation of funds in Title I schoolwide programs. This guidance, which updates and modifies prior guidance on schoolwide programs issued by the Department, can be found on the Internet at the following address: http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.doc.


APPENDIX IX (cont.) assessments. This is because section 1111(b)(7) requires States and LEAs to: provide for an annual assessment of English proficiency (measuring students’ oral language, reading, and writing skills in English) of all students with limited English proficiency in the schools served by the

State educational agency.

Because Title I requires States to administer annual ELP assessments, in general it would be a violation of Title

III supplement not supplant requirements to use Title III funds to develop such assessments. This is because, in the absence of Title III funds, States would still be required to develop and administer an annual ELP assessment under Title I.

Note that the supplement not supplant provision applies to all funds made available under subpart A of Title III, including funds the State retains for State-level activities under section 3111(b)(2). The Department recognizes that some States may have, to date, interpreted the supplement not supplant provision of Title III as not applying to State-level activities, as section 3111(b)(2)(C)(iii) allows States to reserve funds to help subgrantees with such activities as “identifying or developing, and implementing measures of English proficiency.” However, because of the Title III prohibition against supplanting other Federal funds, there are only limited circumstances under which Title III funds reserved under section 3111(b)(2) may be used for costs related to ELP assessments.

Under Title III, State educational agencies (SEAs) are required under section 3113(b)(2) to develop ELP standards. The ELP assessments administered to determine whether Title III subgrantees are meeting Annual

Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) under Title III must be aligned with the State’s ELP standards.

Because the alignment of the ELP assessment with ELP standards is not a requirement that an ELP assessment would otherwise have to meet under Title I, a State may use Title III State Activity funds it receives under section 3111(b)(2) to either:

(1) pay for the costs of developing an ELP assessment, separate from the ELP assessment required under

Title I, that is aligned to the State’s ELP standards, or

(2) pay for the costs of enhancing an existing ELP assessment required under Title I in order to align it with the State’s ELP standards required under Title III.

If, as is typically the case, a single ELP assessment is used in a State to meet both the requirements of Title I and

Title III, only the costs that were incurred specifically to meet Title III requirements not otherwise required under

Title I may be paid for with Title III funds.

Use of Title III Funds to Administer ELP Assessments

Several States and LEAs have requested information from the Department about whether Title III State Activity funds and/or LEA subgrant funds may pay for the costs associated with administration of a State’s annual ELP assessment. Specifically, States and LEAs have asked whether Title III funds may be used to pay for substitute teachers during test administration, for the scoring or reporting of ELP assessment results, for training incentives related to administering the ELP assessment, or for materials or equipment related to the administration of annual ELP assessments.

In general, the cost of administering such assessments may not be paid with Title III funds, including funds reserved by the State for State-level activities, because Title I already requires States to administer an annual

ELP assessment to all LEP students.


APPENDIX IX (cont.)

In the case where a separate ELP assessment is administered for the purposes of Title III only, the costs associated with administering such an assessment may be paid with Title III funds, but only to the extent that those costs are over and above what would be required to administer the ELP assessment required to be administered to all LEP students in the State under Title I.

Therefore, in general, Title III State and subgrantee funds may not be used to pay for substitute teachers or materials or for the cost of scoring State ELP assessments administered to LEP students, as these activities are all related to the administration of a State’s annual ELP assessment required under Title I.

However, in cases in which a State has a separate or particular assessment for Title III purposes only, or prepares separate reports of student, school or LEA performance for Title III purposes only, Title III funds may be used for activities over and above what would have been in place absent the Title III requirements.

Use of Title I and other Federal Funds for State ELP Assessments

There are funds available from Title I and other Federal programs to help States develop and administer their

ELP assessments.

For example, there is specific statutory authority for an SEA to use Title I State administrative funds, either alone or consolidated with other ESEA administrative funds, to develop State ELP assessments. This authority is found in section 9201(f) of the ESEA, which states: “In order to develop challenging State academic standards and assessments, a State educational agency may consolidate the amounts described in subsection (a)

[consolidation of State administrative funds under any ESEA program or other program designated by the

Secretary] for those purposes under Title I.” Because section 1111(b)(7) of Title I requires annual ELP assessments, the Department believes that section 9201(f) authorizes the use of State administrative funds for this purpose.

In addition, section 6111 of the ESEA, which provides additional funds to States for assessments and related activities, specifically permits a State to use those funds “to pay the costs of the development of the additional

State assessments…required by section 1111(b),” which includes annual ELP assessments. Further, section

6111(2) specifically permits the use of 6111 funds to administer the assessments required by section 1111(b), but only after development of the assessments is complete.

Finally, the Department has awarded competitive enhanced assessment grant funds under section 6112 to consortia of States to develop ELP assessments in compliance with Title III.

Screening and Placement Assessments for LEP Students

While most of the discussion above focuses on the annual ELP assessments States are required to develop and administer to track the progress of LEP students’ attainment of

English language skills, it should also be noted that States and LEAs are responsible for identifying LEP students who may need language education services, regardless of their receipt of Federal funds. Many States and LEAs have developed language assessments used for the purposes of screening students for language proficiency and placing students into core language instruction educational programs. The development and administration of such screening or placement assessments may not be paid for out of Title III or Title I Federal funds. This is because States and LEAs would be required to identify and make placement decisions for LEP students even without Federal funding. Thus, it would violate both the Title I and Title III “supplement not supplant” provisions to use such Federal funds for the development or administration of LEP screening or placement assessments.


APPENDIX X Sample Title III (Supplemental) Lead Teacher Description

TITLE:

QUALIFICATIONS:

Title III (Supplemental) Lead Teacher

1.

NC Teaching License in English as a Second Language

2.

Prior successful classroom experience

3.

Demonstrated expert knowledge of K-12 English Language Development Standard

Course of Study

REPORTS TO: ESL Director

JOB GOAL: To provide extended opportunities for the district to improve the quality of the BASIC

Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP).

PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBLITIES:

1.

Provides supplemental professional development for school ESL teachers through training sessions, observations, modeling, and coaching.

2.

Assists and supports school ESL teachers in development of formative assessments.

3.

Assists and supports the ESL Director in development of the Title III plans, as necessary.

4.

Supports school ESL teachers in improving the BASIC LIEP and supports training for classroom teachers in the area of English language acquisition.

5.

Explores school and district Limited English Proficient student data with ESL teachers to supplement planning for PLC discussions and more informed instructional decisions.

6.

Conducts a yearly district needs assessment in collaboration with ESL Coordinator, Science Coordinator,

ELA Coordinator, and AIG Coordinator.

7.

Works with ESL Coordinator to improve and sustain a long-term professional growth framework that supports the implementation of services for English language learners in the district.

8.

Provide school ESL teachers with current research based best practices in the area of Second Language acquisition as well as corresponding literacy resources and materials.

9.

Attends and provides specialized leadership for district Professional Learning Communities in collaboration with ESL Coordinator.

10.

Collaborates with ESL Coordinator and other district and school leaders to enhance targeted intervention support for English language learners.

11.

Works with ESL Coordinator to extend and improve communication with parents and community in developing the district’s Title III Application.

12.

Attends district level Curriculum & Instruction meetings as needed.

13.

Stays current with professional literature, latest research, and best practices. Attends professional seminars, conventions, and other trainings to receive instruction in research-based second language acquisition strategies and how to work effectively with adult learners.

14.

Performs other appropriate duties as assigned by the supervisor.


APPENDIX XI Sample Title III (Supplemental) Parent Liaison Description

Job Description: Title III (Supplemental) Parent Liaison

Purpose Statement:

The Title III Parent Liaison serves to enhance communication and understanding between language minority families and school; clarifying and expanding information regarding school and/or district expectations to language minority families; assisting with families’ requests and/or concerns; and referrals to other agencies.

Essential Functions:



Assist language minority families in locating community resources for the purpose of promoting parent effectiveness and student achievement.



Assist with the organization and implementation of events and activities for the purpose of enhancing parent involvement.

 Convey parents’ questions and concerns to appropriate school/district staff for the purpose of supporting student success, and further facilitates communication with parents.



Supplements ESL services to newcomer students and families.

Other Functions:

 Collaborates with other personnel to identify language minority parents’ issues and concerns.



Participate in required in-service activities for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing work related skills.

Qualifications:



Must have a high school diploma, preferred two years of college level education



At least five years of working with parents/families and community members



Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing with parents, schools, community and district office personnel



Speaking, reading and writing skills in a second language predominant in the community


APPENDIX XII Guidance for BASIC (Core) Language Instruction Educational

Program (LIEP) Services

Guidance for BASIC (Core) Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP) Services

2014-2015 Title III Application

LEA, Consortium, or Charter: __________________________________________________ Date: ____________________

The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) office, Title III State Consolidated Grant Group monitored the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) the week of October 24-27, 2011. This was a comprehensive review of NCDPI’s administration of Title III,

Part A, authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. As a result of this monitoring visit, NCDPI is collecting each LEA’s

Language Instruction Education Programs (LIEP) information.

Directions: Using the constructs below, create a LIEP continuum rubric of services for your LEA and/or Charter.

Consider the Criteria for determining the category of service, the Context in which services are provided in the

LEA/Charter, and the actual Menu/List of Services that correspond to each category of service from the sample list below. Please specify how you are providing LIEP services for ELL/AIG and ELL/EC students.

Sample LIEP Continuum of Services Categories (NCDPI recommends a minimum of 3 categories of LIEP Services)

Category 1: Direct Service Level 1 Category 2: Direct Service Level 2 Category 3: Direct Service Level 3

LIEP Continuum of Services Rubric (Indicate the name your LEA will use for each category or LIEP Services)

Category 1: Category 2:

Criteria: General proficiency levels 1-2

Please see sample page.

Generally proficiency levels 3-4


Context: Please see sample page. Please see sample page.

Services: Please see sample page. Please see sample page.

*NCDPI recommends the utilization of multiple data sources and data reflective practices.

Category 3:

Generally proficiency level 5




The following constructs have been generated for your reference.

Criteria to determine the category in which each ELL is “placed”

Range of English Language Proficiency Levels (Domain specific and/or overall proficiency levels), Years in US Schools, First

Language literacy, Previous Schooling (interrupted/continuous), Grade level expectations (Struggling/meeting/exceeding),

Meeting HS Graduation Requirements, Recommendations by former teachers, Grade (PreK, K, 1-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12)

Other (please specify)

Context/Resources

Itinerant teachers, low incidences, Teacher/Student Ratio

Other (please specify)

Menu of Services* (include frequency of services)

Supplemental Computer Programs, Tutors (ESL/Content), Sheltered Instruction, Co-Teaching, Pullout ESL, Content-based

ESL,

Newcomers Program, Teacher/Student Coaching, District/Student LEP Plan, Small Groups, Peer Tutoring, Teacher Assistants,

ELL related PD for content teachers, Appropriate Scheduling, Targeted Instructional Modifications/Accommodations

(LinguaFolio, SIOP, ExC-ELL, relevant data analysis, use of supplemental materials, etc.)

Others (Please specify)

*The frequency and services may vary from district to district and school to school based on LEP population resources and schedules. Students can be served by an array of educational professionals through services including but not limited to the menu of services provided above in collaboration with ESL staff.


APPENDIX XII (cont.)

SAMPLE BASIC (Core) Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP) Services

2014-2015 Title III Application

The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) office, Title III State Consolidated Grant Group monitored the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) the week of October 24-27, 2011. This was a comprehensive review of NCDPI’s administration of Title III,

Part A, authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. As a result of this monitoring visit, NCDPI is collecting each LEA’s

Language Instruction Education Programs (LIEP) information.

Directions: Using the constructs below, create a LIEP continuum rubric of services for your LEA and/or Charter.

Consider the Criteria for determining the category of service, the Context in which services are provided in the

LEA/Charter, and the actual Menu/List of Services that correspond to each category of service from the sample list below.

Sample LIEP Continuum of Services Categories (NCDPI recommends a minimum of 3 categories of LIEP Services)

Category 1: Direct Service Level 1 Category 2: Direct Service Level 2 Category 3: Direct Service Level 3

LIEP Continuum of Services Rubric (Indicate the name your LEA will use for each category or LIEP Services)

Criteria:

Direct Services Level 1

Generally proficiency levels – 1-2 R/W

Year in US Schools <2

May be SIFE, not meeting HS graduation requirements or struggling academically, non-literate in first language.


Generally proficiency levels – 3-4 R/W

Years in US Schools >2 , long term ELLs

May be SIFE, not meeting HS graduation requirements or struggling academically.


Generally proficiency level 5 R/W

Years in US Schools varies

May be meeting HS graduation requirements and/or succeeding academically in most subject areas or language domains.

Context:

Services:

Medium size LEA with strong LEP support and small teacher to student ratio. 1 teacher may serve more than one school. LEP plan is developed at the district level and for each LEP student.

K-5: Pull out 5 days a week for minimum of 30-45 mins. Some coteaching, content teachers SIOP trained, appropriate instructional modifications in place, afterschool tutoring provided and some TAs available for additional support.

6-8: Content based ESL class for 45 minutes per day. Content teacher team

SIOP and ExC-ELL trained and students strategically scheduled.

Appropriate instructional modifications in place, and after school tutoring provided in most schools.

9-12: One school offers a newcomer program for ½ day. All others offer content based ESL class for 90 minutes per day. Content teachers SIOP and

ExC-ELL trained and student clustered. Appropriate instructional modifications in place and after school tutoring provided in most schools.

Medium size LEA with strong LEP support and small teacher to student ratio.

1 teacher may serve more than one school. LEP plan is developed at the district level and for each LEP student.

K-5: Mostly co-teaching with some pull out to focus on specific skill sets identified through data reflection, content teachers SIOP trained, appropriate instructional modifications in place, afterschool tutoring provided

6-8: Some content based ESL classes for

45 minutes per day, but mostly coteaching. Content teacher team SIOP and

ExC-ELL trained and students strategically scheduled. Appropriate instructional modifications in place, and after school tutoring provided in most schools.

9-12: Some content based ESL classes for 90 minutes per day, and some coteaching. Content teachers SIOP and

ExC-ELL trained and student clustered.

Appropriate instructional modifications in place, and after school tutoring provided in most schools.

Medium size LEA with strong LEP support and small teacher to student ratio. 1 teacher may serve more than one school. LEP plan is developed at the district level and for each LEP student.

K-5: Mostly served by SIOP trained teachers. ESL support as needed for teachers (coaching, ELL strategies) and student (1 on 1, small group, content specific) to meet specific language needs as identified through data reflection. Appropriate instructional modifications in place.

6-8: Mostly served by SIOP trained teachers. ESL support as needed for teachers (coaching, ELL strategies) and student (1 on 1, small group, content specific) to meet specific language needs as identified through data reflection. Appropriate instructional modifications in place.

9-12: Mostly served by SIOP trained teachers. ESL support as needed for teachers (coaching, ELL strategies) and student (1 on 1, small group, content specific) to meet specific language needs as identified through data reflection. Appropriate instructional modifications in place.


Appendix I Language Instructional Program Types in North Carolina

Appendix I

Language Instruction Educational Program Types in North Carolina Public Schools

APPENDIX II SAMPLE North Carolina Home Language Survey Form

APPENDIX III Home Language Survey Process

North Carolina Procedures for the Identification of Limited English Proficient

Students

APPENDIX IV GCS-K-000

APPENDIX V Selected OCR Guidance

Office of Civil Rights

Policy Update on Schools' Obligations

Toward National Origin Minority Students With Limited-English Proficiency

APPENDIX VI PRC 104 Federal Allotment Formula

APPENDIX VII PRC 111 Federal Allotment Formula

APPENDIX VIII PRC 054 State Allotment Formula

APPENDIX IX Supplement Not Supplant Final Letter 10-2-08_2

APPENDIX X Sample Title III (Supplemental) Lead Teacher Description

APPENDIX XI Sample Title III (Supplemental) Parent Liaison Description

Job Description: Title III (Supplemental) Parent Liaison

APPENDIX XII Guidance for BASIC (Core) Language Instruction Educational

Program (LIEP) Services

Guidance for BASIC (Core) Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP) Services

2014-2015 Title III Application

SAMPLE BASIC (Core) Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP) Services

2014-2015 Title III Application

Related documents

Products

Support

Appendix I Language Instructional Program Types in North Carolina

Appendix I

Language Instruction Educational Program Types in North Carolina Public Schools

APPENDIX II SAMPLE North Carolina Home Language Survey Form

APPENDIX III Home Language Survey Process

North Carolina Procedures for the Identification of Limited English Proficient

Students

APPENDIX IV GCS-K-000

APPENDIX V Selected OCR Guidance

Office of Civil Rights

Policy Update on Schools' Obligations

Toward National Origin Minority Students With Limited-English Proficiency

APPENDIX VI PRC 104 Federal Allotment Formula

APPENDIX VII PRC 111 Federal Allotment Formula

APPENDIX VIII PRC 054 State Allotment Formula

APPENDIX IX Supplement Not Supplant Final Letter 10-2-08_2

APPENDIX X Sample Title III (Supplemental) Lead Teacher Description

APPENDIX XI Sample Title III (Supplemental) Parent Liaison Description

Job Description: Title III (Supplemental) Parent Liaison

APPENDIX XII Guidance for BASIC (Core) Language Instruction Educational

Program (LIEP) Services

Guidance for BASIC (Core) Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP) Services

2014-2015 Title III Application

SAMPLE BASIC (Core) Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP) Services

2014-2015 Title III Application

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib