NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED511982
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2010-May
Pages: 26
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 23
Title III Accountability: Behind the Numbers. ESEA Evaluation Brief: The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act
Boyle, Andrea; Taylor, James; Hurlburt, Steven; Soga, Kay
US Department of Education
"Title III Accountability: Behind the Numbers" (2010) summarizes data reported by states in their Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs) for 2004-05 through 2007-08. The CSPRs are annual reports required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that states use to submit information to the U.S. Department of Education about their activities and outcomes related to specific ESEA programs. The CSPR data reflect states' direct reports as of March 2009 and have not been validated by the U.S. Department of Education or other external parties. Key findings from the brief are as follows: (1) Because states have used a wide variety of definitions and other features to set their Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) targets, it is very difficult to compare districts across states. Additionally, these definitional variations, along with differences in the English Learning Proficiency (ELP) assessments themselves, make the targets easier to reach in some states than in others; (2) AMAO 2: States also use a variety of approaches in determining whether ELs are "attaining English language proficiency." For example, some states include all EL students in applying their AMAO 2 target. Others include only the subset of English Learner (EL) students who were identified as likely to achieve proficiency within the reporting period, an approach ED now prohibits beginning with the 2009-10 reporting year. Additionally, even states using the same ELP assessment establish different cut scores for determining proficiency; and (3) Analysis of districts in three states selected for this brief indicates that half the districts that were designated for Title III improvement in 2007-08 also were designated for improvement under Title I in that year. However, this analysis also indicates that many districts that missed their AMAOs under Title III were still able to make their Title I Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets. These districts tended to be disproportionately small and rural. (Contains 9 exhibits and 32 notes.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Judith Wilde. For the companion reports, see "Title III Accountability and District Improvement Efforts: A Closer Look" (ED511983) and "Title III Policy: State of the States" (ED511984).]
US Department of Education. Available from: ED Pubs. P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Tel: 877-433-7827; Fax: 301-470-1244; Web site:
Publication Type: Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: Department of Education (ED); American Institutes for Research
Identifiers - Location: Arizona; California; New York; North Carolina; United States
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title III
IES Cited: ED559979