1. NCLB Accountability Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) Presented at the FY10 Bilingual Education Program Directors Meeting, Crowne Plaza, Springfield September 30, 2009

2. Key goals of Title III of the ESEA To ensure that LEP students: A ttain English language proficiency A ttain high levels of academic achievement in English, and M eet the same challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards that all children are expected to meet.

3. To achieve these goals USDE releases Title III grants that provide states and their sub-grantees funds to implement language instruction educational programs. Such Title III funds will be used to support High quality professional development designed to improve services to LEP students, and High quality language instruction educational programs that are designed to increase the English proficiency and academic achievement of LEP students.

4. Title III Accountability Requirement: English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards F irst, each states Title III ELP standards must be based on four language domains speaking, listening, reading, and writing and aligned with the achievement of challenging academic content and student achievement standards (Section 3113(b)(2)).

5. Title III Accountability Requirement: English Language Proficiency (ELP) Assessments S econd, each states English Language Proficiency (ELP) assessment must be administered annually to Title III-served LEP students (Section 3113(b)(3)(D)) valid and reliable (Section 3122(a)(3)(A)(ii)), and provide for the evaluation of LEP students levels of speaking, reading, writing, listening, and comprehension in English (Section 3121(d)(1)). Title III requires states to ensure that all sub-grantees comply with the requirement to annually assess the English proficiency of all Title III-served LEP students, consistent with the ELP assessment requirements in Section 1111(b)(7) of the ESEA.

6. Title III Accountability Requirement: Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) T hird, states and their sub-grantees are accountable for meeting Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) that relate to Title III-served LEP students development and attainment of English proficiency and academic achievement. Each state must: Set AMAO targets Make determinations on whether sub-grantees are meeting those targets, and Report annually on sub-grantees performance in meeting those targets.

7. Title III Accountability Requirements ELP Standards (aligned with content standards) (1) Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) (3) ELP and Academic/Content Assessments (2)

8. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) The Three AMAO CRITERIA: AMAO 1 - Focuses on the extent to which Title III served LEP students in a state and its sub-grantees are making progress in learning English. AMAO 2 - Focuses on the extent to which Title III-served LEP students in a state and its sub-grantees are attaining proficiency in English. AMAO 3 – Is based on whether the state and its sub-grantees meet the states adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets for the LEP subgroup in reading/language arts and mathematics, as defined by the state under Section 1111(b)(2)(B) in Title I of the ESEA.

9. Operational Translations of AMAO Criteria in Illinois AMAO 1 (Making progress in the English language) A limited English proficient (LEP) student makes progress if he/she makes at least a half (0.5) proficient level gain in any of the four domains from one administration to the next or obtains the maximum level of proficiency (6.0) in the second of the two comparative years in any of the four domains. A district or consortium meets AMAO 1 criterion if 85% of its Title III-served students make progress.

10. Operational Translations of AMAO Criteria in Illinois AMAO 2 (Attaining proficiency in the English language) An LEP student attains proficiency he/she received at least a 4.0 overall proficiency level in the current testing year. A district or consortium meets AMAO 2 criterion if 10% of its Title III-served students receive at least a 4.0 overall proficiency level in the current testing year.

11. Operational Translations of AMAO Criteria in Illinois AMAO 3 (AYP for LEP Subgroup) An LEA or consortium meets the AMAO 3 criterion if it meets the AYP for the LEP Subgroup. In 2009, AYP student performance targets are 70% in both reading and mathematics.

12. Illinois AMAO Measures or Assessments

13. Illinois AMAO Criterion Targets To meet AMAO, districts and consortia must meet the targets of ALL three AMAO criteria!!!

14. Calculations of AMAO for Consortia in FY09 (A change from previous years) USDE requires that States make AMAO determinations for all subgrantees, including all districts that are members of a consortium. States must be able to demonstrate that the decision rules maximize accountability for consortia in the State. In Illinois, starting in FY09, AMAOs were calculated for consortia and districts, unlike in the past five years, where AMAOs were calculated at the district level only.

15. Implications of Calculating AMAOs for Consortia All districts have AMAO status. All ELP assessment data and other applicable data from each of the members in a consortium are aggregated and based on aggregated data, the state determines whether the consortium has met the AMAOs. AMAO status of the consortium apply to all district members.

16. AMAO in Illinois – Going Back Six Years

21. Consequences of Not Meeting the AMAO School districts that did not meet AMAO for two (2) consecutive years are required by SEA to develop an improvement plan. The improvement plan must specifically address the factors that prevented the district from meeting the AMAOs.

22. Consequences of Not Meeting the AMAO School districts that did not meet AMAO for four (4) consecutive years are required by SEA to modify the districts bilingual program model, curriculum, and methods of instruction to meet the needs of English language learners. The SEA also determines whether the district should continue to receive Title III funds and whether to replace educational personnel relevant to the districts failure to meet the objectives.

23. Consequences of Not Meeting the AMAO Furthermore, Section 3302 of Title III requires that parents of LEP students served by a district that received Title III funds shall be notified each year that a district does not meet AMAO.