August 4, 1995

MEMORANDUM

To: District School Superintendents

FROM: Robert L. Bedford, Deputy Commissioner

SUBJECT: Title I Services for Limited English Proficient Students

This is a transmittal memorandum to disseminate a joint memorandum from Thomas W. Payzant, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S.D.O.E., and Eugene Garcia, Director, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs, U.S.D.O.E., regarding Title I Services for Limited English Proficient Students. Their attached memorandum makes some specific points which are worth repeating:

Title I, Part A provides that LEP students are eligible for Title I services on the same basis as other children selected to receive services.

No longer does a local educational agency need to demonstrate that the needs of LEP students stem from educational deprivation and not solely from their limited English proficiency.

Title I funds may not be used to provide services that are required to be made available to LEP students by other laws.

In addition, the following guidelines, drawn from the language of the memorandum, apply:

A school district may not waive LEP students from being tested using norm- referenced, standardized instruments and then allege that the lack of results in such tests prevents LEP students from being considered for services by Title I.

If the particular structure for delivering Title I services at a district or a school is not in accordance with the state guidelines governing the education of LEP students then the existence of such a structure may not be used as grounds for denying Title I services to LEP students. A resolution to such a conflict would be either the adoption of a new Title I delivery strategy amenable to all students or the development and implementation of an alternative delivery strategy that allows for serving LEP students within state guidelines.

ESOL Programs funded by the state merely ensure the delivery of "basic education" for LEP students. LEP students found eligible to be served by Title I do not, therefore, receive benefits in excess of eligible non-LP students whose "basic education" is also supplemented by Title I. Therefore, a LEP student's participation in an ESOL program may not, by itself, be used as a valid reason for excluding the student from Title I services.

It is the expressed intent of the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) to encourage the joining of all available resources in a concerted effort to improve the education of all students. The marshaling of Title I, Title VII and state resources shall certainly bring Florida closer to achieving its goal of equity and excellence in the education of all of its students.

MEMORANDUM TO CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

SUBJECT: Title I services for limited English proficient students

As you may be aware, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education is currently working on guidance to assist State and local educational agencies and schools in implementing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA). Portions of this guidance already have been forwarded to State Title I coordinators.

This letter is to call your attention to provisions in the new statute relating to services for limited English proficient (LEP) students. While this issue will be addressed more completely in the final guidance, we are aware that you currently are making plans for services for LEP students. We hope the information in this letter will be useful to you pending distribution of the more detailed Title I guidance.

Title I, Part A provides that LEP students are eligible for Title I services on the same basis as other children selected to receive services. In schools operating schoolwide programs, where the goal is to upgrade the instructional program in the entire school, all children, including LEP students, are intended to benefit from the program and the needs of all students are to be taken into account in the program design. In targeted assistance schools (schools not operating schoolwide programs), LEP students are to be selected for services on the same basis as other children--on the basis of multiple, education related, objective criteria for determining which children are failing or most at risk of failing to meet the State's student performance standards. No longer does a local educational agency need to demonstrate that the needs of LEP students stem from educational deprivation and not solely from their limited English proficiency.

The new law requires a State to use the same assessments it uses to measure the performance of all children (if the State measures the performance of all children) for Title I accountability purposes. Limited English proficient students participating in Title I are to be included in the State assessments. When a State's final assessments are developed (which must be done by the year 2000) students are to be assessed, to the extent practicable, in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information to determine student mastery of skills subjects other than English. These assessments further must be able to be disaggregated by several categories including by English proficiency status and by migrant status at the State, local educational agency, and school levels. Until such time when assessments are developed that meet the requirements of the statute, a State must use a transitional set of yearly assessments. LEP students participating in Title I are to be included in those assessments.

In addition to questions about selecting LEP students for Title I services, you may be receiving inquiries about the connection between Title I and other programs serving LEP students. Title I funds may not be used to provide services that are required to be made available to LEP students by other laws (e.g., through interpretations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and State bilingual laws). However, Title I funds may be used to coordinate and supplement those services, as well as provide other direct service to LEP students. Title I funds may be used to pay the salaries of instructional staff to work with those students having academic difficulties, including LEP students. These staff would work closely with the ESL/Bilingual teachers and regular classroom teachers.

The enclosed paper, "How Title I and Title

We hope you find this information helpful.

Under the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), which includes the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), limited English proficient LEP) students are eligible for Title I (formerly Chapter 1) services and Title VII programs must be coordinated with Title I state plans: Because the number of LEP students is growing and the ESEA has moved in new directions, schools, local educational agencies (LEAs), and state educational agencies (SEAs, are faced with special challenges and opportunities to raise the performance of LEP students.

What is the context within which schools, LEAs, and SEAs operate to provide high-quality education to LEP students?

The number of LEP students is growing.
There were 2.51 million LEP students in public elementary and secondary schools in the 1992-93 school year(1). This is an 85 percent increase since 1984, and research suggests that the number will continue to grow. Most LEP students are young: Over two-thirds of LEP students are in grades K-6.

LEP students are very likely to attend high-poverty schools.
More than 40 percent of LEP students attend schools in which at least 75 percent of the students are eligible for the free or reduced-price school lunch program, whereas only 13 percent of the total school-age population is in high-poverty schools. Over 74 percent of LEP students attend schools in which at least half of the students are eligible for the free or reduced-price school lunch program.

Many LEP students are at risk of failure in school.
Measured by academic grades earned. retention in grade level, and standardized tests, the academic performance of LEP students lags behind that of other elementary school students.

Many LEP students are in Title I.
Forty-three percent of the nation's LEP students are in Title I programs--and they account for 17 percent of Title I's 6.4 million participants, according to 1992-93 data.

Title I serves LEP students and that role will grow.
The reauthorized Title I makes it clear that large numbers of LEP students are eligible for Title I services.

Many teachers and aides of LEP students are not certified to teach LEP students.
Only about one-third of 1st grade LEP students and one-fifth or 3rd grade LEP students have a regular classroom teacher certified to tech bilingual education. Title I English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers and aides are less likely than non-Title I ESL personnel to have bilingual or ESL credentials. In addition, only about 16 percent of 1st and 3rd grade LEP students are taught by regular classroom teachers who report having ESL certification.

How can Title I and Title VII work together to help schools, LEAs, and SEAs strengthen their ability to raise the performance of LEP students?

Challenging state standards are standards for all children.
The purpose or Tile I is to help children served "acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging state content standards and to meet the challenging state performance standards developed for all children." The purpose of Title VII is "to educate limited English proficient children and youth to meet the same rigorous standards for academic performance expected of all children and youth, including meeting challenging state content standards and challenging state student performance standards in academic areas." Title I and LEP children must be held to the same challenging standards as other children.

Assessing student achievement requires determining that the method used is valid and reliable.
Limited English proficiency poses serious technical challenges to accurate assessment. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the new ESEA emphasize upgrading and modernizing assessment for improved instruction and accountability. Large differences in language minority populations among schools, local school districts, and states make accurate comparisons of student and school achievement technically difficult and can lead to invalid or unreliable "comparisons.'' Inaccurate assessments can also have major implications for student placement, curricula, and instruction. Title I state assessments will provide for "the inclusion of limited English proficient students who shall be assessed, to the extent practicable, in the language and form most likely to yield accurate and reliable information on what such students know and can do, to determine such students' mastery of skills in subjects other than English." Close interaction between Title I and Title VII (including their research, technical assistance, evaluation, and dissemination activities) can help to improve the quality of assessment development and implementation.

States review LEA applications to determine consistency with other state plans.
States must review LEA Title VII applications and provide the Secretary with comments, including whether the proposed program is consistent with the state's Title I plan.

Both Titles emphasize comprehensive school reform and capacity-building.
There are four discretionary grant categories under the Title VII, Subpart 1, instructional services program authority:

• - Three-year Program Development and Implementation grants to initiate new programs.
• - Two-year Program Enhancement grants to expand or enhance state and locally funded programs.
• - Five-year Comprehensive School grants to develop and implement schoolwide bilingual education programs.
• - Five-year Systemwide Improvement grants to develop and implement district-wide programs that serve all or most LEP students.

As in Title I, grantees will ensure that programs are not isolated from the overall school program. and that the programs will emphasize comprehensive reform and build local capacity to serve all LEP students.

Title I and Title II promote schoolwide programs.
Schools may combine their Title VII funds with their Title I funds for comprehensive reform in Title I schoolwide programs. Under the Title VII Comprehensive Schools grants program. schools with high concentrations of LEP students may implement schoolwide bilingual or special alternative instructional programs to upgrade all relevant programs and operations that serve all LEP students. Coordination of Title I and Title VII through schoolwide approaches can ensure access of LEP students to the full mainstream curriculum.(2)

Both Title I and Title VII encourage schoolwide staff development.
Most teachers serving LEP students have little training in how second-language acquisition and cultural diversity influence learning or the educational experience of students. Only about one third of the teachers of LEP students have ever taken college courses that address these issues. Both the reauthorized Title I and Title VII recognize that staff development is key to increasing the performance of all students. Title I requires and Tile VII encourages recipients of funds to demonstrate how they will provide intensive, sustained professional development to help all teachers teach to challenging state standards.

Title I and Title V promote increased parental involvement.
While participation of parents of LEP students in school activities is, in the aggregate, low, effective school and community efforts to increase parental participation can boost chances for higher student achievement. Parental involvement is a major theme of the IASA, as reflected, for example, in the new Title I school-parent compacts. Increased emphasis on schoolwide and systemwide school improvement allows staff supported by Title I and Title VII to cooperate more effectively to increase the participation of parents of LEP students in schools and in their children's education.

For example: Title I requires schools and LEAs to "ensure. to the extent possible, that information related to school and parent programs. meetings, and other activities is sent to the homes of participating children in the language used in such homes."

The IASA supports a comprehensive system of technical assistance.
The IASA creates a system or comprehensive, regional technical assistance centers to improve education or all children. Educators at all levels of the educational system will be far better served by this coordinated approach than by the current system of dozens of centers that focus on individual programs in isolation from one another.

(1) Henderson, A., Donly, B. & Strang, W (1994, September). Summary of the Bilingual Education State Educational Agency program survey of states' limited English proficient persons and available educational services 1992-1993: Final Report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.

(2) For more information on implementing

schoolwide programs, please call the U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service (202) 401-0590 for a copy of An Idea Book: Implementing Schoolwide Projects; search Internet: gopher.ed.gov-->elementary and secondary education (OESE), and early childhood--> schoolwide programs; or contact the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education at (800) 321-6223 or ASKNCBE@NCBE.GWU.EDU via Internet.