(EL) Policy and Procedures Manual 9-6-11 Appendix Revised ... - Alex

1 | P a g e
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
MANUAL APPENDIX
Alabama State Department of Education
Federal Programs Section
Post Office Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-2101
(334) 353-4544
1-888-725-9321

2 | P a g e
ENGLISH LEARNERS (ELs)
POLICY & PROCEDURES MANUAL
This document, English Learners (ELs) Policy and Procedures Manual, is an outgrowth of the
Alabama State Department of Education’s voluntary agreement with the U.S. Department of
Education, Office for Civil Rights (Compliance Review #04-98-5023), for providing services to
students who are English learners (ELs). It incorporates requirements and applicable references to
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This document is intended to provide
basic requirements and guidance for policies, procedures, and practices for identifying, assessing,
and serving ELs. While the term limited-English proficient (LEP) is used in legal and official
documents, the EL Policy and Procedures Manual refers to LEP students as ELs. Questions about
responsibilities of local education agencies (LEAs) in providing English language services may be
directed to:
Dr. Tommy Bice, Deputy State Superintendent of Education tbice@alsde.edu
Dr. Tammy H. Starnes, Title III/State EL Coordinator tstarnes@alsde.edu
Mrs. Dely Velez Roberts, EL Specialist/Title I droberts@alsde.edu
Printing costs for this document were supported by Title III.

Legal Cases Related to English Learners
1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VI
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving federal financial assistance.” -42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
o Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from discrimination based on race, color or
national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Public institutions
(like schools) must provide equal quality of educational services to everyone, including those who are
Limited English Proficient (LEP). Title VI covers all educational programs and activities that receive
Federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Education (ED).
May 25, 1970, Memorandum
“The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify policy on issues concerning the responsibility of LEAs to
provide equal educational opportunity to national origin minority group children deficient in English
language skills.
o Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group
children from effective participation in the education program offered by a LEA, the LEA must take
affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these
students. School districts have the responsibility to notify national origin- minority group parents of
school activities, which are called to the attention of other parents. Such notice in order to be adequate
may have to be provided in a language other than English.
Lau v. Nichols (US Supreme Court Decision 1974)
“The failure of school system to provide English language instruction to approximately national origin
students who do not speak English, or to provide them with other adequate instructional procedures,
denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program, and thus
violates § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based "on the ground of race,
color, or national origin," in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," and the
implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Pp. 414 U. S. 565-569.”
o The Supreme Court stated that these students should be treated with equality among the schools.
Among other things, Lau reflects the now-widely accepted view that a person's language is so closely
intertwined with their national origin (the country someone or their ancestors came from) that
language-based discrimination is effectively a proxy for national origin discrimination.
1974– Equal Education Opportunities Act
“The Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974 states: “No state shall deny equal educational
opportunity to an individual based on his or her race, color, sex, or national origin by the failure of an
educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal
participation by its students in its instructional programs.”
o The EEOA prohibits discriminatory conduct against, including segregating students on the basis of race,
color or national origin, and discrimination against faculty and staff serving these groups of individuals,
as it interferes with their equal educational opportunities. Furthermore, the EEOA requires LEAs to
take action to overcome students' language barriers that impede equal participation in educational
programs.
Plyler v. Doe (U.S. Supreme Court Decision 1982)
“The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the
Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall „deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws‟ . . . The undocumented status of these children does not establish a
sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents . . . No national
3 | P a g e

policy is perceived that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education.” -457
U.S. 202
o The right to public education for immigrant students regardless of their legal status is guaranteed.
o Schools may not require proof of citizenship or legal residence to enroll or provide services to
immigrant students.
o Schools may not ask about the student or a parent’s immigration status.
o Parents are not required to give a Social Security number.
o Students are entitled to receive all school services, including the following:
Free or reduced breakfast or lunch, – transportation, – educational services, and – NCLB, IDEA,
etc.
Presidential Executive Order 13166
“Entities receiving assistance from the federal government must take reasonable steps to ensure that
persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) have meaningful access to the programs, services, and
information those entities provide.”
o Recipients of federal assistance are required to help students overcome language barriers by
implementing consistent standardized language assistance programs for LEP. In addition, persons with
limited English proficiency cannot be required to pay for services to ensure their meaningful and
equitable access to programs, services, and benefits.
2001 – Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
“Title III of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires that all English language learners (ELLs)
receive quality instruction for learning both English and grade-level academic content.
NCLB allows local flexibility for choosing programs of instruction, while demanding greater
accountability for ELs' English language and academic progress.”
o Under Title III, states are required to develop standards for English Language Proficiency and to link
those standards to the state's Academic Content Standards. Schools must make sure that ELLs are part
of their state's accountability system and that ELs' academic progress is followed over time by
o establishing learning standards, that is, statements of what children in that state should know and be
able to do in reading, math, and other subjects at various grade levels;
o creating annual assessments (standardized tests, in most states) to measure student progress in
reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high schools;
o setting a level (cut-off score) at which students are considered proficient in tested areas; and
o Reporting to the public on what percentages of students are proficient, with the information broken
down by race, income, disability, language proficiency, and gender subgroups.
Castañeda v. Pickard, [5th Cir., 1981] 648 F.2d 989 (US COURT OF APPEALS)
“In 1981, in the most significant decision regarding the education of language-minority students since
Lau v. Nichols, the 5th Circuit Court established a three-pronged test for evaluating programs serving
English language learners. According to the Castañeda standard, schools must base their program on
educational theory recognized as sound or considered to be a legitimate experimental strategy, –
implement the program with resources and personnel necessary to put the theory into practice, and –
evaluate programs and make adjustments where necessary to ensure that adequate progress is being
made. [648 F. 2d 989 (5th Circuit, 1981)].”
This case established a three-part test to evaluate the adequacy of a district's program for the English
language learner:
1. Is the program based on an educational theory recognized as sound by some experts in the field or is it
considered by experts as a legitimate experimental strategy?
2. Are the programs and practices, including resources and personnel, reasonably calculated to
implement this theory effectively?
3. Does the school district evaluate its programs and make adjustments where needed to ensure that
language barriers are actually being overcome?
4 | P a g e

Key Vocabulary for English Learners
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/glossary.html
ACCESS: is a standards-based, criterion referenced English language proficiency test. It
assesses social and instructional English as well as the language associated with language
arts, mathematics, science, and social studies within the school context across the four
language domains.
BICS: Basic interpersonal communication skills. The language ability required for verbal
face-to-face communication.
CALP: Cognitive academic language proficiency. The language ability required for
academic achievement.
Castañeda v. Pickard: On June 23, 1981, the Fifth Circuit Court issued a decision that is
the seminal post-Lau decision concerning education of language minority students. The
case established a three-part test to evaluate the adequacy of a district's program for ELL
students: (1) is the program based on an educational theory recognized as sound by some
experts in the field or is considered by experts as a legitimate experimental strategy; (2)
are the programs and practices, including resources and personnel, reasonably calculated
to implement this theory effectively; and (3) does the school district evaluate its programs
and make adjustments where needed to ensure language barriers are actually being
overcome? [648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir., 1981)]
Content-based English as a Second Language: This approach makes use of instructional
materials, learning tasks, and classroom techniques from academic content areas as the
vehicle for developing language, content, cognitive and study skills. English is used as the
medium of instruction.
Dual Language Program: Also known as two-way or developmental, the goal of these
bilingual programs is for students to develop language proficiency in two languages by
receiving instruction in English and another language in a classroom that is usually
comprised of half native English speakers and half native speakers of the other language.
EL: English learner. A national-origin-minority student who is limited-English-proficient.
This term is often preferred over limited-English-proficient (LEP) as it highlights
accomplishments rather than deficits.
English as a Second Language (ESL): A program of techniques, methodology and special
curriculum designed to teach ELL students English language skills, which may include
listening, speaking, reading, writing, study skills, content vocabulary, and cultural
orientation. ESL instruction is usually in English with little use of native language.
Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974: This civil rights statute prohibits states from
denying equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race,
color, sex, or national origin. The statute specifically prohibits states from denying equal
educational opportunity by the failure of an educational agency to take appropriate action
to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its
instructional programs. [20 U.S.C. §1203(f)]
FLEP: Fluent (or fully) English proficient.
5 | P a g e

Informed Parental Consent: The permission of a parent to enroll their child in an EL
program, or the refusal to allow their child to enroll in such a program, after the parent is
provided effective notice of the educational options and the district's educational
recommendation.
Language Dominance: Refers to the measurement of the degree of bilingualism, which
implies a comparison of the proficiencies in two or more languages.
Language Proficiency: Refers to the degree to which the student exhibits control over the
use of language, including the measurement of expressive and receptive language skills in
the areas of phonology, syntax, vocabulary, and semantics and including the areas of
pragmatics or language use within various domains or social circumstances. Proficiency in
a language is judged independently and does not imply a lack of proficiency in another
language.
Lau v. Nichols: A class action suit brought by parents of non-English-proficient Chinese
students against the San Francisco Unified School District. In 1974, the Supreme Court
ruled that identical education does not constitute equal education under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. The court ruled that the district must take affirmative steps to overcome
educational barriers faced by the non-English speaking Chinese students in the district.
[414 U.S. 563 (1974)]
LEP: Limited-English-proficient. (See ELL)
Maintenance Bilingual Education (MBE): MBE, also referred to as late-exit bilingual
education, is a program that uses two languages, the student's primary language and
English, as a means of instruction. The instruction builds upon the student's primary
language skills and develops and expands the English language skills of each student to
enable him or her to achieve proficiency in both languages, while providing access to the
content areas.
May 25 Memorandum: To clarify a school district's responsibilities with respect to
national-origin-minority children, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
on May 25, 1970, issued a policy statement stating, in part, that "where inability to speak
and understand the English language excludes national-origin-minority group children
from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the
district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open the
instructional program to the students."
NEP: Non-English-proficient.
Newcomer Program: Newcomer pro-grams are separate, relatively self-contained
educational interventions designed to meet the academic and transitional needs of newly
arrived immigrants. Typically, students attend these programs before they enter more
traditional interventions (e.g., English language development programs or mainstream
classrooms with supplemental ESL instruction).
Sheltered English Instruction: An instructional approach used to make academic
instruction in English understandable to ELL students. In the sheltered classroom, teachers
use physical activities, visual aids, and the environment to teach vocabulary for concept
development in mathematics, science, social studies, and other subjects.
6 | P a g e

Structured English Immersion Program: The goal of this program is acquisition of
English language skills so that the ELL student can succeed in an English-only mainstream
classroom. All instruction in an immersion strategy program is in English. Teachers have
specialized training in meeting the needs of ELL students, possessing either a bilingual
education or ESL teaching credential and/or training, and strong receptive skills in the
students' primary language.
Submersion Program: A submersion program places ELL students in a regular Englishonly
program with little or no support services on the theory that they will pick up English
naturally. This program should not be confused with a structured English immersion
program.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title VI prohibits discrimination on the grounds of
race, color, or national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance. The Title VI
regulatory requirements have been interpreted to prohibit denial of equal access to
education because of a language minority student's limited proficiency in English.
Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: The Bilingual Education Act,
Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), recognizes the unique
educational disadvantages faced by non-English speaking students. Enacted in 1968, the
Bilingual Education Act established a federal policy to assist educational agencies to serve
students with limited-English-proficiency by authorizing funding to support those efforts. In
addition to providing funds to support services to limited-English-proficient students, Title
VII also supports professional development and research activities. Reauthorized in 1994
as part of the Improving America's Schools Act, Title VII was restructured to provide for
an increased state role and give priority to applicants seeking to develop bilingual
proficiency. The Improving America's Schools Act also modified eligibility requirements
for services under Title I so that limited-English-proficient students are eligible for services
under that program on the same basis as other students.
Transitional Bilingual Education Program: This program, also known as early-exit
bilingual education, utilizes a student's primary language in instruction. The program
maintains and develops skills in the primary language and culture while introducing,
maintaining, and developing skills in English. The primary purpose of a TBE program is to
facilitate the ELL student's transition to an all English instructional program while
receiving academic subject instruction in the native language to the extent necessary.
World Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA): Alabama is a part of the
WIDA consortium and adopted the WIDA Consortium's ELP Standards for Pre-
Kindergarten–Grade 12 encompass:
7 | P a g e
o Social and Instructional language
o Language of Language Arts
o Language of Mathematics
o Language of Science
o Language of Social Studies

8 | P a g e
SCHOOL YEAR _____________
ELL STUDENT REFERRAL AND PLACEMENT FORM
PART I To be completed by ESL teacher upon notification of potential English Language Learner.
Student ___________________________,_________________________ I.D. # ________________________
Last First
Male Female Date of Birth _____/_____/_______ U.S. Entry Date: _____/_____/______
Shelby County Entry Date: _____/_____/______
Country of Birth: __________________________________ School: _________________________________ Grade: _________
Teacher: ________________________ Home Language: _______________________ ESL Teacher: _______________________
School Student Will Attend for ESL Program Placement: __________________________________________________________
Home Language Survey Completed Yes No Date _____/_____/_______
DAte
PART II To be completed by ESL teacher.
Test Results:
W-APT WIDA/ACCESS Other Assessments:____________________
Speaking ________ Listening _________ DIBELS:________________________________________
Listening _________ Speaking________ ARMT : Reading:__________ Math:__________
Reading __________ Reading___________ SAT 10:______________________________________________
Writing __________ Writing__________ ADAW:_______________________________________________
Composite______________ Comprehension_________ AHSGE: Rdg / Lang. / Math / Sc / SS
Composite___________ (circle sections passed)
Other Evaluative Data:____________________________________
Additional support services are recommended for this student in the area of:
Reading Speech/Pronunciation Writing Math Other ______________________
Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
ESL Teacher Signature ______________________________________ Date _____/_____/_______
PART III Within ten (10) days ELL Committee must complete this section.
ELL Committee Comments:
Not Highly
PROGRAM ENTRY Recommended Recommended Recommended
(Circle One) 1 2 3 4 5 6
The parental signature below indicates permission for student participation in the English
Language Acquisition program, unless otherwise indicated in the summary section.
Signatures Position Date
______________________________ Parent _________
______________________________ _______________________ _________
______________________________ _______________________ _________
______________________________ ________________________ _________
______________________________ ________________________ _________
_____________________________ ________________________ _________
SUMMARY
ELL Committee Recommendations:
(Circle CHOICES)
A. Assign to ESL ________________
hours weekly - Pullout or Inclusion
B. Accommodations (circle appropriate
assessment) ACCESS for ELLs /
DIBELS / SAT-10/ARMT /
ADAW / AHSGE
C. Exempt from semester exams
D. Regular Classroom with
Accommodations
E. Exit Date_______________________
F. FLEP Status: M Yr 1 / M Yr 2 /FLEP
G. Exempt from ESL (NOMPHLOTE)
H. Exempt from ESL (FLEP)
I. Grading _______________________
J. Denial of Participation
K. Other _________________________
______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________________

Place completed form in student's cumulative file and ELL folders and send a copy to Leah Dobbs Black, ESL Program Area Specialist, at SCISC.
9 | P a g e
Accommodations Recommended for Use in Regular Classroom
(To be completed by ELL Committee - Circle all that apply)
Student Name ____________________________________Grade
___________________________________
Teacher_________________________________________ School
___________________________________
1. Provide oral tests
2. Give modified tests / alternative assessment
3. Provide highlighted texts, materials, etc.
4. Use visual aids
5. Provide additional instructions
6. Provide outlines
7. Extend time for assignment completion
8. Shorten assignments
9. Utilize assignment notebooks and prompts
10. Teach in small group
11. Provide repeated reviews and drills
12. Allow for peer teaching
13. Reduce paper/pencil tasks
14. Provide manipulatives
15. Seat at the front of the classroom with minimal visual and
auditory distractions
16. Help student build a card file of vocabulary words
17. Read to the student
18. Encourage students to underline key words or important
facts
19. Allow students an opportunity to express key concepts in
their
own words
20. Permit the use of picture or bilingual dictionaries or
electronic translating devices
21. Provide photocopied notes or outlines
22. Give alternative homework or class work assignments
suitable for the student’s linguistic ability for activities
and assessments
23. For textbook or teacher made questions, add page
numbers for
answer location
24. For worksheets with reading assignments, color code question in
conjunction with the reading segment
25. Substitute a hands-on activity or use of different media in
projects for written activity
26. Design bonus work or projects for student that require reduced
sentence or paragraph composition
27. Give student a daily or weekly syllabus of class and homework
assignments
28. Consider informal observations of performance and classroom
participation as a percentage of the overall evaluation
29. Substitute an alternate reading assignment more appropriate in
length and reading level. Where possible, use material
specifically designed for LEP students
30. Disregard misspelled words when grading or underline key
words that were misspelled and give the student a chance to
correct them before grading
31. Accept correct answers on tests or worksheets in any written
form such as lists or phrases
32. Incorporate group work into the assessment process
33. Create modified quiz or test in simple language instead of using
standardized tests/shorter tests rather than chapter exams/use
matching columns and/or word banks colum
34. Provide an opportunity for the student to take the test
individually with the instructor or provide a reader for the
student during the test
35. Other _________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Additional Accommodations:_______________________________________________________
Comments: _____________________________________________________________________

10 | P a g e
EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR LIMITED-
ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS
DISTRICT ASSESSMENT GUIDE 1
This Guide is designed to assist District staff in obtaining a comprehensive overview of the
District’s practices and procedures with regard to equal educational opportunities for limited-
English proficient students. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) staff will also review responses to the
Guide as part of its partnership review process. Please circle the answer under each statement that
best responds to the statement, indicating in the Comments if a statement does not apply. Other
comments may also be provided to explain an answer. OCR anticipates that the Guide will be
completed by a team of individuals in each school that OCR schedules to visit. Team members
should be individuals who are most knowledgeable of the District’s policies and procedures
relative to the issue being reviewed by OCR. This would include administrators, teachers, and
paraprofessionals. The schools that OCR will visit will be identified in follow-up telephone
discussions between District officials school is welcome to complete the Guide. The questions in
the Guide should be answered as related to the particular school, not to the District as a whole,
except where specifically noted. A copy of the completed guides are to be returned to OCR, along
with responses to the Profile Data Request, within the timeframe agreed to between OCR and
District officials.
IDENTIFICATION
Limited-English proficient (LEP) students are students who speak or were influenced by a
language other than English, and who are unable to participate meaningfully in the regular
educational program because of their inability to speak and understand English. The first step
most districts follow in determining which students are LEP is to determine which students have a
primary or home language other than English (PHLOTE). PHLOTE students may or may not be
LEP.
1. Are the school’s procedures effective in identifying all students who have a primary or home
language other than English?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
1 This Assessment Guide is to assist school systems to voluntarily comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 regarding equal educational opportunities for national origin minority students who are limited-English
proficient. Responses to questions also may be used by the Office for Civil Rights in conducting compliance reviews
on this issue. The Guide is part of an OCR program to encourage partnership approaches to civil rights compliance.
School systems are not required to provide data to OCR in this format.

2. Have staff who administer the school’s identification procedures received special training on
these procedures?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
3. Are school staff knowledgeable of the procedures for identifying students who have a primary
or home language other than English?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
4. Do the school’s procedures for initially identifying students who have a primary or home
language other than English determine:
a. Whether the student speaks a language other than English?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
b. Whether the student understands a language other than English?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
c. Whether the student’s language skills have been influenced by a language other that English
spoken by someone else, such as a grandparent, babysitter or another adult?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
11 | P a g e

5. Do staff who work directly with parents and students in the identification of students who have
a primary or home language other than English speak and understand the appropriate
language(s)?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
6. Is documentation regarding each student’s primary or home language maintained in the
student’s files, including special education files?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
ASSESSMENT
1. Does the school assess the English language proficiency of all students identified as
having a primary or home language other than English?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
2. Are students who have a primary or home language other than English assessed for oral
language, reading and writing proficiency, and English comprehension?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
3. If the school conducts proficiency assessments for students who have a primary or
home language other than English, are these assessments:
a. formal assessments (e.g., tests)?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
12 | P a g e

Comments:______________________________________________________________________
b. informal assessments (e.g., teacher interviews, observations)?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
4. Has the district or school trained the staff who administer, evaluate, and interpret the
results of the assessment methods used?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
5. Has the school determined a specific level of English-language proficiency at which students
are considered LEP and eligible for alternative language services?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE PROGRAM (e.g., ESL, Bilingual, Structured Immersion)
1. Are there alternative language programs available for LEP students at each grade level?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
2. Are there substantial delays (e.g., more than 30 days) in placing LEP students into an alternative
language program?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
13 | P a g e

3. Are parents involved in making the final determination of whether an LEP student is placed in the
ESL program?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
4. Is there coordination between teachers in the school’s alternative program for LEP students and
teachers n the regular classroom?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
5. If the high school has an alternative program for LEP students, can students in the program earn
credits toward graduation?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
6. Are instructional materials adequate to meet the English language and academic needs of LEP
students?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
STAFF
1. Has the District or school established special qualifications for teachers who teach in alternative
language programs?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
14 | P a g e

2. Does the school have sufficient numbers of qualified teachers to teach LEP students?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
3. If the school does not have sufficient numbers of qualified teachers to teach LEP students, has it
made special efforts to recruit qualified teachers?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
4. Do teacher aides teach in alternative language programs without direct supervision by a qualified
teacher?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
5. Does the District or school provide regular training for teachers and aides who teach LEP students?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
EXIT CRITERIA
1. Has the school established criteria to determine when an LEP student qualifies to exit an alternative
language program?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
15 | P a g e

2. Do the exit criteria ensure that (former) LEP students can speak, read, write, and comprehend
English sufficiently well to participate meaningfully in the District’s regular educational program?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
3. Are the school’s criteria for exiting LEP students from alternative language programs based on
objective standards that ensure the student will be able to participate meaningfully in the District’s
regular educational program?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
4. Does the school monitor the academic progress of LEP students who have exited the alternative
language program?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
5. Does the school determine whether former LEP students are performing at a level comparable to
their non-LEP peers?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
6. Has the school established procedures for responding to deficient academic performance of former
LEP students?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
16 | P a g e

7. Do former LEP students have access to the full school curriculum once they have exited the
alternative language program?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
8. Are achievements, honors, awards, or other special recognition rates of former LEP students similar
to those of their peers?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
PROGRAM EVALUATION
1. Does the District or school conduct a formal evaluation of its alternative language program to
determine its effectiveness?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
2. Has the District of school determined that its alternative language program, or parts of it, are not
achieving its goals for LEP students?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
3. Does the District or school modify its alternative language program to make it more effective?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
17 | P a g e

4. Has the alternative language program(s) been evaluated by and outside source?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
5. Has the District or school developed statistics to compare grade retention, graduation, and drop-out
rates of former LEP students to those of their peers?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE TO PARENTS
1. Does the school communicate with parents of students with a primary home language other than
English and LEP students in a language the parents understand?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
2. Does the school use interpreters or translators to assist in communicating with parents who do not
speak English?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
SEGREGATION
1. Are the quality of facilities and services available to LEP students comparable to those available to
non-LEP students?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
18 | P a g e

2. Are the quality and quantity of instructional materials in the alternative language program
comparable to the instructional materials provided to non-LEP students?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
3. Do LEP and non-LEP students participate together in classes, activities, and assemblies?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
4. Do LEP students have access to the full school curriculum (both required and elective courses,
including vocational education) while they are participating in an alternative language program?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
5. Are the counseling services provided to LEP students comparable to those available to non-LEP
students?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS (e.g., Gifted and Talented, Advanced Classes)
1. Do LEP students have opportunities for full participation in special opportunity programs?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
19 | P a g e

2. Is the assessment for participation in special opportunity programs similar for LEP and non-LEP
students?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
3. Are English-only tests used to assess LEP and non-LEP students who may need special education
services?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:________________________________________________________________________
SPECIAL EDUCATION
1. Does the school utilize special procedures for identifying and assessing LEP students who many
need special education services?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
2. Do the school’s procedures for identifying and assessing LEP students for special education take
into account language and cultural differences?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
3. Are persons who administer special education assessment tests to LEP students especially trained
in administering the tests?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
20 | P a g e

4. Has the school assured itself that LEP students are being placed in the special education program
because of actual qualifying condition, and not simply because of cultural differences or a lack of
English-language skills?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
5. Does the instructional program for LEP students in special education take into account their
language needs?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
6. Does the school ensure coordination between the regular and the special education programs in
meeting the particular needs of LEP students who are in special education?
5 4 3 2 1
Always Never
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________
21 | P a g e

22 | P a g e
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER IDENTIFICATION,
PLACEMENT, AND ASSESSMENT FLOWCHART
NOMPHLOTE
(students do not
require services)
Struggling EL
students
may be
rescreened for
ESL services after
an appropriate
time in the
mainstream.
Administer the Home
Language Survey
Language Other
Than English?
YES
Screen with
WAPT
Place in ESL Program
LEP Year 1 (1 st year
in U.S. school)
or LEP Year 2 or
more
EXIT Status
FLEP Monitoring
Year 1
EXIT Status
FLEP Monitoring
Year 2
Language Other
Than English?
NO
General
Education
LEP-W
Waived Title III
Supplemental
Services
FLEP*
ACRONYMS
WAPT: WIDA ACCESS for ELLs Placement Test
NOMPHLOTE: National Origin Minority whose Primary Home Language is Other Than English
LEP-W: Limited English Proficient – Waived Title III Supplementary Services
LEP: Limited English Proficient
FLEP: Former Limited English Proficient
*Students who transfer from a different district or state and have already exited from an ESL
program are not NOMPHLOTES; rather, they are Former Limited English Proficient (FLEP).

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST FOR
SERVING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
The SDE has established Alabama’s requirements for programs and services for students who are
English language learners. The requirements, restated and expanded herein, were disseminated to
local education agency superintendents in a letter dated January 21, 1999, from the State
Superintendent of Education.
Each local education agency (LEA) superintendent or designee shall:
1. Develop and implement a comprehensive English Language Learners (ELL) Plan.
2. Identify and provide resources to serve language-minority and English language learners.
3. Coordinate programs and services to language-minority and English language learners and
their parents at the local school level.
4. Report annually to the State Department of Education (SDE) information concerning the
identification, placement, and educational progress of language-minority and English
language learners.
5. Report annually to the SDE information relating to the number of students who are English
language learners and services rendered.
6. Administer a Home Language Survey to every student at the time of enrollment and shall
ensure that surveys are maintained in each individual student’s permanent record.
7. Administer the state-adopted World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) -
ACCESS Placement Test (W-APT) language proficiency test to any and all students whose
Home Language Survey indicates a language other than English. The W-APT is used for
diagnostic and placement purposes. The LEA shall provide appropriate and sufficient training
for designated staff who administer this test.
8. Establish program entrance criteria for students who are assessed to have limited English
language proficiency. Non-English language background students who test fluent on the
English language proficiency assessment will not be eligible for English language
development services.
9. Establish and implement a system so that every limited-English proficient student has a
student support team (ELL Committee) to analyze information gathered from the student
enrollment process and English language proficiency assessment. The team shall make
decisions about the types of instructional and support services that are needed. At a
minimum, information from the Home Language Survey, the language proficiency test, the
student’s home and educational background, and the student’s content knowledge and skills
as demonstrated in the classroom shall be considered in decisions about programs and
services to be provided. Although there is nothing to prohibit members from the Building-
23 | P a g e

Based Student Support Teams participating on ELL Committees, these committees serve very
different purposes.
10. Ensure that every English language learner has equal access to instructional support,
extracurricular programs, services, and activities.
11. Develop and implement an English language instruction educational program that provides
English language learners productive and practical opportunities to develop English
proficiency. In addition, the program should provide support to ELLs in achieving the state’s
content and student performance standards that are expected of all students. The program
must employ scientifically based research (SBR) curricula, instructional materials, and
methodologies designed for teaching English language learners and immigrant children and
youth.
12. Employ multiple and appropriate assessment measures to evaluate the academic progress of
English language learners. Accommodations must be appropriate and enable ELLs to
demonstrate what they know and are able to do (See Part II, page
27–28, of the ELL Policy & Procedures Manual for Grading and Retention Guidelines; Part
III, page 32, and Appendix A, Online Resources, Item 4, for the Special Populations Bulletin
Accommodations Checklist). These assessment measures shall include annual English
language proficiency test scores, as well as a variety of formal and informal classroom content
assessments. English language learners must be appropriately accommodated in the content
classroom.
13. Follow program exit criteria established by the State so that a student is not maintained in an
English language instruction educational program longer than is necessary (See page 36 for
State established ESL program exit requirements). No student shall be exited from an English
language instruction educational program, until the program exit criteria have been met.
14. Establish procedures for addressing parent refusal of Title III services. Documentation should
be retained for any eligible student whose parent declines or withdraws participation in
supplemental Title III instruction. Students whose parents/guardians refuse Title III services
are still required by federal law to participate in the annual state-adopted English language
proficiency test.
15. Monitor the English language and academic progress of each exited student for a minimum of
two academic years. Students that demonstrate academic or other difficulties while being
monitored shall be provided supplemental support and instruction and/or be readmitted to an
English language instruction educational program. (See page 37 for ESL Program Exit
Requirements and Monitoring of ELLs.)
16. Ensure that English language learners participate in the state’s student assessments in
accordance with current SDE and federal policies and procedures (See Appendix A, Online
Resources, Item 4, Alabama Student Assessment Program Policies and Procedures for
Students of Special Populations and Part III, page 31, of the ELL Policy & Procedures
Manual).
24 | P a g e

17. Provide ongoing scientifically based research (SBR) professional development for all
personnel responsible for supporting ELLs.
18. Coordinate services, to the extent needed and practicable, with those available through local
agencies and institutions to maximize adequate and efficient delivery of services to English
language learners and their parents.
19. Make reasonable, meaningful, and sufficient efforts to involve parents/guardians of students
who are English language learners in the student’s overall educational program. Notifications
of LEA and school policies and procedures, school activities, academic and behavioral
expectations, available alternative language and support services, and student academic
progress shall be made to parents/guardians in a uniform format and, to the extent practicable,
in a language that they can understand.
20. Establish, implement, and communicate to language-minority parents/guardians, community
groups, and other interested parties reasonable, meaningful, and sufficient methods for them
to express ideas and concerns regarding the provision of services to LEP students.
21. Report annually to its constituents, by means of the Annual LEA Report Card, information,
including student demographics, program participation rates, English proficiency acquisition
rates, and student achievement results, as applicable and appropriate for English language
instruction educational programs and English language learners. ACCESS for ELLs test data
will be reported by school districts on the SDE’s webpage.
22. Submit to the SDE, upon request, data and other information to reflect participation and
progress of ELLs in all areas of the English language instruction educational program.
Each LEA may consider joint or consortium agreements between and among LEAs to provide
academic and support programs to English language learners. The consortium members will
designate a lead to the consortium. Therefore, Annual Measurable Achievement Objective
(AMAO) results will be derived from a composite of all students in the consortium, which will
determine AMAO status for all consortium member LEAs. (See Part III of the ELL Policy and
Procedures Manual, pages 31–37, AMAOs overview).
25 | P a g e

Policy Update on Schools' Obligations Toward National Origin Minority Students With Limited-English
Proficiency
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.
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.
26 | P a g e

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-English-proficient 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.
27 | P a g e

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 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.
28 | P a g e

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
retention-in-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.
APPENDIX: 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.
29 | P a g e

In view of the similarity between the EEOA and the policy established in the 1970 OCR memorandum, in 1985 OCR adopted the Castaneda
standard for determining whether recipients' programs for LEP students complied with the Title VI regulation. Several courts have also treated Title
VI and the EEOA as imposing the same requirements regarding limited-English-proficient students. See Heavy Runner v. Bremner, 522 F. Supp.
162, 165 (D. Mont. 1981); Rios v. Read, 480 F. Supp. 14, 21-24 (E.D.N.Y. 1978)(considered Title VI, § 1703(f), and Bilingual Education Act of
1974 claims together; used 1975 Lau Remedies [10] to determine compliance); Cintron v. Brentwood Union Free School Dist., 455 F. Supp. 57, 63?64
(E.D.N.Y. 1978) (same); see also Gomez v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 811 F.2d 1030 (7th Cir. 1987) (used Castaneda standard for § 1703(f) claim;
remanded claim under Title VI regulation without specifying standard to be used in resolving it, except to note that proof of discriminatory intent
was not necessary to establish a claim under the Title VI regulation); Idaho Miqrant Council v. Board of Education, 647 F.2d 69 (9th Cir. 1981)
(Idaho state education agency had an obligation under § 1703(f) and Title VI to ensure that needs of LEP students were addressed; did not discuss
any differences in obligations under Title VI and § 1703(f)).
Castaneda itself did not treat Title VI and the EEOA interchangeably, however. Instead, it distinguished between them on the ground that a showing
of intentional discrimination was required for a Title VI violation, while such a showing was not required for a § 1703(f) violation. Castaneda, 648
F.2d at 1007. See also Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 576 F. Supp. 1503, 1519 (D. Colo. 1983) (court found that alternative language program violated
§ 1703(f) and elected not to determine whether it also violated Title VI; questioned continuing validity of Lau in light of Bakke and noted that
remedying § 1703(f) violation would necessarily remedy any Title VI violation).
Castaneda and Keyes were decided before Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission of New York, 463 U.S. 582, 607 n.27, 103 S. Ct.
3221, 3235 n.27 (1983). In Guardians, a majority of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of administrative regulations incorporating a
discriminatory effect standard for determining a Title VI violation). [11] Thus, Castaneda and Keyes do not undermine the validity of OCR's decision
to apply § 1703(f) standards to determine compliance with the Title VI regulation.
A recent California case, however, distinguished § 1703(f) and the Title VI regulation on other grounds. Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified School Dist.,
724 F. Supp. 698 (N.D. Cal. 1989). In analyzing the § 1703(f) claim in Teresa P., the court used the three-part Castaneda standard and determined
that the district's program was adequate under that standard. Id. at 712-16. In addressing the claim brought under the Title VI regulation, however,
the court stated that plaintiffs had failed to make a prima facie case because they had not alleged discriminatory intent on the part of the defendants,
nor had they "offered any evidence, statistical or otherwise," that the alternative language program had a discriminatory effect on the district's LEP
students. Id. at 716-17.
In Teresa P., the district court found that the district's LEP students were participating successfully in the district's curriculum, were competing
favorably with native English speakers, and were learning at rates equal to, and in some cases greater than, other LEP students countywide and
statewide. 724 F. Supp. at 711. The court also found that, in general, the district's LEP students scored higher than the county and state-wide
average on academic achievement tests. Id. at 712. Given these findings, the dismissal of the Title VI claim in Teresa P. can be regarded as
consistent with OCR's May 1970 and December 1985 memoranda, both of which require proof of an adverse impact on national origin minority
LEP students to establish a violation of the Title VI regulation. [12]
Neither Teresa P. nor any other post-Castaneda case undermines OCR's decision to use the Castaneda standard to evaluate the legality of a
recipient's alternative language program. OCR will continue to use the Castaneda standard, and if a recipient's alternative language program
complies with this standard the recipient will have met its obligation under the Title VI regulation to open its program to LEP students.
Attachments
As Stated
[1] Lau v. Nichols , 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786 (1974).
[2] Castaneda v. Pickard , 648 F. 2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).
[3] These and other applicable policy documents can be located through OCR's automated Policy Codification System (PCS) by selecting "current"
policy and the keywords "Limited-English Proficient (LEP) Student" (F054). Documents not listed as "current" policy in the PCS should not be
used.
[4] But cf. Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified School District, 724 F. Supp. 698, 714 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (finding that district had adequately implemented its
language remediation program even though many of its bilingual and ESL teachers did not hold applicable credentials; court noted that district
probably could not have obtained fully credentialed teachers in all language groups, district was requiring teachers to work toward completion of
credential requirements as a condition of employment, record showed no differences between achievement of students taught by credentialed
teachers and achievement of students taught by uncredentialed teachers, and district's financial resources were severely limited).
[5] Cf. Castaneda, 648 F. 2d at 1013 (court of appeals remanded for determination as to whether deficiencies in teaching skills were due to inadequate
training program (100-hour program designed to provide 700-word Spanish vocabulary) or whether failure to master program caused teaching
deficiencies).
30 | P a g e

[6] Aides at the kindergarten and first grade levels need not demonstrate reading and writing proficiency.
[7] For example, when an overwhelming majority of students in a district are LEP students, it may be more appropriate to compare their performance
with their non-LEP peers county- or state-wide.
[8] For an example of a program exclusively for newly-arrived immigrants consistent with Title VI, see OCR's Letter of Findings in Sacramento City
Unified School District, Compliance Review Number 09-89-5003, February 21, 1991.
[9] Section 1703(f) of the EEOA states, in pertinent part, "No State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her
race, color, sex, or national origin, by. . . .the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede
equal participation by its students in its instructional programs." The pertinent section of the OCR 1970 memorandum states, "Where inability to
speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program
offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to
these students."
[10] OCR's 1975 Task Force Findings Specifying Remedies Available for Eliminating Past Educational Practices Ruled Unlawful Under Lau v.
Nichols.
[11] The applicable Department of Education regulation is 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(2).
[12] A Ninth Circuit case also treated § 1703(f) and Title VI claims differently, but in such a terse fashion that it cannot be determined whether these
differences would ever have a practical effect. See Guadalupe Org. v. Tempe Elementary School Dist. No. 3., 587 F. 2d 1022, 1029 -30 (9th Cir.
1978) (court found that maintenance bilingual/bicultural education was not necessary to provide students with the "meaningful education and the
equality of educational opportunity that [Title VI] requires"; court also found that districts did not have to provide maintenance bilingual/bicultural
education to be deemed to have taken "'appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its
instructional program'" (quoting § 1703(f)).
31 | P a g e

115 STAT. 1732 PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002
‘‘SEC. 3302. PARENTAL NOTIFICATION.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Each eligible entity using funds provided under this title to provide a language instruction
educational program shall, not later than 30 days after the beginning of the school year, inform a parent or the parents
of a limited English proficient child identified for participation in, or participating in,
such program of—
‘‘(1) the reasons for the identification of their child as
limited English proficient and in need of placement in a language instruction educational program;
‘‘(2) the child’s level of English proficiency, how such level was assessed, and the status of the child’s academic
achievement;
‘‘(3) the method of instruction used in the program in
which their child is, or will be, participating, and the methods of instruction used in other available programs,
including how such programs differ in content, instruction goals, and use of English and a native language in
instruction;
‘‘(4) how the program in which their child is, or will be participating will meet the educational strengths and needs of
the child;
‘‘(5) how such program will specifically help their child learn English, and meet age appropriate academic
achievement standards for grade promotion and graduation;
‘‘(6) the specific exit requirements for such program, the expected rate of transition from such program into
classrooms that are not tailored for limited English proficient children, and the expected rate of graduation from
secondary school for such program if funds under this title are used for children in secondary schools;
‘‘(7) in the case of a child with a disability, how such
program meets the objectives of the individualized education program of the child; and
‘‘(8) information pertaining to parental rights that includes written guidance—
‘‘(A) detailing—
‘‘(i) the right that parents have to have their child
immediately removed from such program upon their
request; and
‘‘(ii) the options that parents have to decline to
enroll their child in such program or to choose another
program or method of instruction, if available; and
‘‘(B) assisting parents in selecting among various programs and methods of instruction, if more than one program or
method is offered by the eligible entity.
‘‘(b) SEPARATE NOTIFICATION.—In addition to providing the
information required to be provided under subsection (a), each eligible entity that is using funds provided under this
title to provide a language instruction educational program, and that has failed to make progress on the annual
measurable achievement
objectives described in section 3122 for any fiscal year for which part A is in effect, shall separately inform a parent or
the parents of a child identified for participation in such program, or participating
in such program, of such failure not later than 30 days
after such failure occurs.
‘‘(c) RECEIPT OF INFORMATION.—The information required to be provided under subsections (a) and (b) to a
parent shall be
20 USC 7012. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:24 Jan 29, 2002 Jkt 099139 PO 00110 Frm 00308 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL110.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL110 PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002 115 STAT. 1733
provided in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that the parent can
understand.
‘‘(d) SPECIAL RULE APPLICABLE DURING SCHOOL YEAR.—For a child who has not been identified for
participation in a language instruction educational program prior to the beginning of the school year, the eligible entity
shall carry out subsections (a) through (c) with respect to the parents of the child within 2 weeks of the child being
placed in such a program.
‘‘(e) PARENTAL PARTICIPATION.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each eligible entity using funds provided under this title to provide a language instruction
educational program shall implement an effective means of outreach to parents of limited English proficient children
to inform such
32 | P a g e

parents of how they can—
‘‘(A) be involved in the education of their children;
And
‘‘(B) be active participants in assisting their children—
‘‘(i) to learn English;
‘‘(ii) to achieve at high levels in core academic
subjects; and
‘‘(iii) to meet the same challenging State academic
content and student academic achievement standards
as all children are expected to meet.
‘‘(2) RECEIPT OF RECOMMENDATIONS.—The outreach described in paragraph (1) shall include holding, and
sending notice of opportunities for, regular meetings for the purpose of formulating and responding to
recommendations from parents
described in such paragraph.
‘‘(f) BASIS FOR ADMISSION OR EXCLUSION.—A child shall not be admitted to, or excluded from, any federally
assisted education program on the basis of a surname or language-minority status.
33 | P a g e

34 | P a g e
ESL PROGRAM EVALUATION SAMPLE
(please attach pages as needed)
1. Evaluation of: ________________
2. Number of students served by this program: _______________
3. Program goal(s): (♪ These should be the same goals identified on eGap.) Please
number each goal.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
4. What data were used to identify the program goal(s)? (A data source should
be tied to each goal by number.) For example, goal number #1 should be
based on/tied to data source # 1.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
5. What strategies were used to accomplish each goal (s)? (Strategies should be
tied to each goal by number.)
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

6. What resources (budget) were expended to accomplish the goal(s)?
(Resources should be tied to each goal by number)
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
7. Provide data/specific evidence used to determine the success of the Program:
(Specific evidence should be tied to goals by number).
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
8. Was each goal accomplished? (The success of each goal should be based on
data used as specific evidence).
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
9. What are the future implications of the program evaluation? Some new goals
may be necessary, other goals may require revisions or continuance.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
LEA __________________________ Date: _________________
Person(s) providing oversight of the program:
_______________________________
35 | P a g e

Criteria to Use for Placement in Conjunction With the
W-APT:
Please use this list for ideas; it is not a comprehensive list.
Reading DIBELS, story retelling using grade-level text, Miscue
analysis, previous reading assessment scores, and Cloze
tests.
Writing Writing samples, free composition, journal writing, and
dictation.
Listening Following directions using a range of sentence
complexity (from simple to complex) and natural
conversations.
Speaking Oral language sample, story retelling, personal
interviews.
Other Review student’s cumulative folder from previous
schools (if possible) for information on test results
from various assessment tools.
Classroom performance.
Interviews with classroom teachers.
The content listed in the table above can be found at:
Evaluation & Assessment for Title VII [now Title III] Projects-Handouts
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/eacwest/handouts/id-lep/backgrnd.htm
36 | P a g e

Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of
Language Minority Students
to Special Education
INTRODUCTION
37 | P a g e
Shernaz B. Garcia and Alba A. Ortiz
The University of Texas at Austin
The reasons that students experience academic failure can be organized into three broad categories
(adapted from Adelman, 1970). The first type of learning problem (Type I) occurs when students
are in classroom environments which do not accommodate their individual differences or learning
styles. For example, limited-English-proficient (LEP) students who need native language or
English-as-a-second-language (ESL) instruction, but who are taught solely in English without any
adaptation of the curricula, can be expected to experience academic difficulties. Other children
have achievement difficulties (Type II), but must be served in the regular classroom because their
problems cannot be attributed to handicapping conditions. A Type II student who has not learned
to read due to excessive absences, for instance, can overcome these deficits when instruction is
individualized, or when remediation programs are provided. Type III children, on the other hand,
have major disorders which interfere with the teaching-learning process. Because they are
handicapped, these students require special education instruction to prepare them to be
successfully mainstreamed into regular classrooms and to assure that they achieve their maximum
potential.
Failure to distinguish Types I and II from Type III learning problems results in the inappropriate
referral of language minority students to special education and contributes to the disproportionate
representation of these students in special education, particularly in classes for the learning
disabled (Tucker, 1981; Ortiz & Yates, 1983; Cummins, 1984). Examination of characteristics of
limited-English-proficient students in programs for the learning disabled (Cummins, 1984; Ortiz et
al., 1985) and the speech and language handicapped (Ortiz, Garcia, Wheeler, & Maldonado-Colon,
1986) suggests that neither the data gathered as part of the referral and evaluation process nor the
decisions made using these data reflect that professionals adequately understand limited English
proficiency, second language acquisition, cultural and other differences which mediate students'
learning. These findings support a growing body of literature indicating that many students served
in special education experience difficulties which are "pedagogically induced" (Cummins, 1984).
Some would argue that there is no harm in placing students who are already failing in the regular
classroom into special education where they will get individualized instruction from teachers who
are specially trained to remediate learning problems. Wilkinson and Ortiz (1986), however, found
that after three years of special education placement, Hispanic students who were classified as
learning disabled had actually lost ground. Their verbal and performance IQ scores were lower
than they had been at initial entry into special education and their achievement scores were at
essentially the same level as at entry. Neither regular education nor special education programs
adequately served the academic needs of these language minority students, a situation which
further underscores the need for prereferral intervention. Otherwise, Type I and II students will

experience the stigma of being labeled as handicapped without significantly improving their
educational status.
USING TEACHER ASSISTANCE TEAMS FOR PREREFERRAL INTERVENTION
To address issues of inappropriate referral and placement of minority children in special education,
one must examine the quality of instruction provided in the mainstream and the validity of referral
and assessment processes (Heller, Holtzman & Messick, 1982). Such examination can be routinely
provided through the implementation of a prereferral intervention process in which teachers are
helped to remediate students' difficulties in the context of the regular classroom before a special
education referral is considered. An effective prereferral process can help distinguish achievement
difficulties that are associated with a failure to accommodate individual differences from problems
that stem from handicapping conditions.
Chalfant and Pysh (1981) recommend the use of Teacher Assistance Teams (TAT), whereby
committees comprised of regular classroom teachers elected by their peers facilitate prereferral
problem-solving. The Teacher Assistance Team and the referring teacher meet together to discuss
problems which are becoming apparent, brainstorm possible solutions, and develop an action plan
which is then implemented by the referring teacher with the support of team members. The team
conducts follow-up meetings to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed interventions and to
develop other instructional recommendations if necessary. It is the Teacher Assistance Team
which ultimately decides whether the student should be referred to special education.
Unlike most special education referral committees, Teacher Assistance Teams do not involve
special education personnel (e.g., special education teachers or psychologists), except when they
are invited to serve as consultants to the committee. This committee structure emphasizes that the
TAT is under the authority and is the responsibility of the regular education system. It is this
authority which distinguishes the prereferral from the referral process. Although in practice referral
committees are considered a regular education function, the involvement of special education
personnel frequently overshadows this intent, making it easier to move students into special
education. The failure of referral committees to serve as gatekeepers to special education is
indicated by the high referral-to-assessment-to-placement rates (75-90%) reported in the literature
(Reynolds, 1984).
There are several benefits to the use of Teacher Assistance Teams. Teachers are provided a day-today
peer problem-solving unit within their school building and thus do not have to experience long
delays until external support can be provided (Chalfant, Pysh, & Moultrie, 1979). Moreover, a
collaborative learning community is established since the team process actually provides
continuous staff development focused on management of instruction and students for all persons
involved. Finally, the use of TAT serves to reduce the number of inappropriate referrals to special
education because most problems can be taken care of by regular education personnel.
38 | P a g e

A PREREFERRAL MODEL FOR LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
The key to success of Teacher Assistance is the quality of the brainstorming and of the strategy
selection process. These require that team members understand the characteristics of effective
teaching and classroom and behavior management, and that they have an in-depth understanding
of the student populations they serve so that instructional recommendations are appropriate to the
needs and background characteristics of students. Moreover, team members must understand that a
variety of factors can contribute to students' difficulties, including the characteristics of
classrooms, programs and teachers.
The prereferral model presented in Figure 1 provides valuable insights for classroom teachers and
team members regarding potential sources of student difficulties and can help them distinguish
Types I and II from Type III problems. The model attempts to build upon existing prereferral
efforts (Graden, Casey & Christenson, 1985; Heller, Holtzman & Messick, 1982; Tucker, 1981) by
raising a series of questions which must be addressed before a referral to special education is
initiated. While many of the questions are appropriate for any student, an effort has been made to
identify questions particularly germane to students in bilingual education and English-as-a-secondlanguage
programs.
In the following sections, questions to be raised at each step of prereferral intervention are
presented and follow-up questions which should be asked at each stage of the process are
identified. Though by no means exhaustive, these follow-up questions are intended to represent
issues that must be considered to more accurately identify the cause(s) of students' difficulties.
39 | P a g e
Step 1
Is the student experiencing academic difficulty?
Because of the diversity of student backgrounds and the range of abilities typically found in
regular classrooms, it is to be expected that some students will experience academic difficulty.
However, it is important for teachers to understand that very few students experience difficulty
because of a handicapping condition. National incidence figures indicate that only 10-12% of the
student population is handicapped (Kaskowitz, 1977; Ortiz & Yates, 1983). Handicapping
conditions include mental retardation, hearing and vision impairments, emotional disturbance,
physical and health impairments, deaf-blindness, multiple handicaps, and specific learning
disabilities. Linguistic, cultural, socioeconomic and other background differences are not
considered handicapping conditions. As a matter of fact, the special education assessment process
must clearly document that a student's learning difficulties arc not the result of factors such as
limited knowledge of English or lack of opportunities to learn. Consequently, prereferral
interventions aimed at identifying the sources of the problem and improving the student's
performance in the mainstream should be attempted before referral to special education is
considered.

Step 2
Are the curricula and instructional materials known to be effective for language minority
students?
A beginning point in addressing the question of whether curricula and/or instructional materials are
effective for second language learners is to examine achievement patterns in a district or on an
individual campus. Representation of students at the high, middle, and low levels of standardized
achievement scores should be proportional with the ethnic composition of the educational unit
being studied. If LEP students historically make the lowest achievement scores, or are overrepresented
in special education, particularly in the category of learning disabilities, indications are
that either the curriculum is ineffective for these students or that it has been poorly implemented.
The curricula and instructional materials should be reviewed to determine whether they present
both minority and majority perspectives and contributions and to determine whether they are
relevant to students' language and culture. If student failure can be attributed to the use of
inappropriate curricula or to ineffective instructional materials then referrals to special education
are unwarranted. Efforts, instead, should focus on modifying or creating more effective
instructional programs.
Program Development and Adaptation
Special language programs exemplify the program development phase suggested by the prereferral
model. The recognition that limited-English-proficient students cannot learn if they do not
understand or speak the language of instruction led to the development of bilingual education and
English-as-a-Second-Language programs. Less recognized, perhaps, is that regular classroom
teachers must also adapt the curriculum and instruction for language minority students who do not
qualify for special language programs and for students who have been exited from bilingual'
education or ESL. Although these students have good conversational English skills, many do not
have the cognitive academic language skills (Cummins, 1984) needed to handle the language used
by teachers in instruction and that found in textbooks. Rather than treat these language minority
students as though they were native speakers of English, teachers must incorporate language
development activities into the curriculum to help students expand and refine their English
language skills to a level commensurate with English speaking peers. Language development
programs are also important for students from lower socio-economic status environments who
have intact language skills for the purposes of communication at home and in their community, but
because of differences in experiences do not have language skills, even in their primary language,
which match the linguistic demands of the bilingual/ESL classroom. Unless these language skills
are taught, such students will be predisposed to school failure.
40 | P a g e
Step 3
Has the problem been validated?
Identification of a student problem typically involves a judgment that the behavior is deviant from
the norm. In the case of language minority students, the norm or reference group must represent
the child's linguistic and cultural community. Several factors must be considered before the
conclusion that behavior is abnormal can be validated, including observation and data collection in
the following areas Tucker, 1981):

1. Inter- and intra-setting comparisons to measure the extent to which the perceived problem
is manifested across different occasions and settings.
2. Inter-individual comparisons must also be made to assess whether the perceived problem
behaviors differ from those of other students in the class. The cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic
and other relevant characteristics of the comparison group must be similar to
those of the target student.
3. Inter-teacher perceptions to identify whether parents confirm the school's perceptions. In
such cases it is more likely that a problem exists.
4. Parental perceptions to determine whether parents confirm the school's perceptions. In
such cases it is more likely that a problem exists.
5. Analysis of student work samples and behavior to determine the specific nature of the
perceived problem. The problem should be described in precise, measurable terms, rather
than using broad, general descriptors such as "below grade level in math, " "cannot read
well," or "has a short attention span." Work samples and behavioral analyses can also help
develop hypotheses about the source of the difficulty. Is the student experiencing difficulty
with division because she/he cannot multiply? Does the student fail to meet expectations
for classroom behavior because the norms are different from those of his home or
community? Work samples are particularly important for students in bilingual education
programs in that they serve to verify, or question, results obtained from standardized
achievement tests which do not usually include representative samples of ethnic or
language minority groups and which do not measure native language skills or achievement.
Step 4
Is there evidence of systematic efforts to identify the source of difficulty and to take
corrective action?
Since failure itself is a multi-faceted phenomenon, it is likely that the solution, too, will involve
more than one aspect of the child's school experience. Solutions must be approached from various
perspectives, to include teacher-, student-, curriculum- and instruction-related factors. Thus, in
some instances, corrective actions include professional development and training for teachers; in
other cases, the student may have to be taught prerequisite skills; in still other situations, a
redirection of curricula and evaluation of instructional programs may be required.
Teacher Characteristics
Teachers may not possess the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to effectively meet the
needs of students from diverse cultural, linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds. When teacher
and student characteristics differ along any or all of these dimensions, the potential for conflict and
failure increases considerably. According to Gay (1981), such differences are often manifested as
conflicts which are substantive (e.g., disagreement over educational goals), procedural (e.g.,
mismatch of teaching and learning styles) or interpersonal (e.g., culturally relevant behaviors
interpreted as behavior problems). All three conditions affect teaching effectiveness and a student's
ability to profit from instruction. It is, therefore, essential to examine the effectiveness of
instruction, including the teacher's qualifications, experience, and teaching history, during the
prereferral process. Examples of questions to be asked about teacher-related variables are given in
Figure 2.
41 | P a g e

Teaching Style. Teachers are predisposed to teach in ways that correspond to their own learning
styles (Ramirez & Castaneda, 1974). This poses few difficulties for students whose learning styles
correspond to the teacher's teaching style, but can be devastating for those whose styles are
incompatible with the instructional approaches being used. Teachers can maximize learning by
using a variety of techniques when they deliver instruction thus giving all students the opportunity
to utilize their own modality preferences or cognitive styles. This can be achieved by the use of
multi-sensory teaching aids, learning centers where students can learn material in a variety of
ways, diversified grouping patterns, variations in reinforcement systems, and so forth.
Additionally, students can be taught to use alternative learning styles thus increasing their chances
of being successful, regardless of task conditions.
Teacher Expectations and Perceptions. Teachers sometimes judge students' competence on the
basis of race, sex, socio-economic, linguistic and cultural differences, rather than on actual abilities
(Bergen & Smith, 1966; Jackson & Cosca, 1974; Rist, 1970; Ysseldyk; Algozzine, Richey, &
Graden, 1982). Research on teacher expectations (Good & Brophy, 1973) further suggests that
teachers differentially interact with students for whom they hold low expectations. For example,
they wait less time for students to respond, offer fewer opportunities to learn, focus on student
behavior and discipline rather than academic work, reinforce inappropriate behaviors, seat low
expectation students further away and call on them less frequently. Differential behaviors have
also been noted in the treatment of boys and girls. Teachers with traditional sex role stereotypes
may do a task for girls but give boys extended directions to complete the activity, interpret girls'
silence as ignorance versus interpreting boys' silence as evidence of thought and reflection, and
provide girls with less feedback, positive or negative, than boys (Sadker & Sadker, 1982). As the
quality of instruction is diminished over time, for specific groups of students this alone could
explain differences in achievement levels. Patterns of teacher-pupil interactions should be analyzed
to determine whether they facilitate or hinder student performance. Additionally, teachers'
expectations should be evaluated to ensure that they are neither too high nor too low, since student
frustration and failure can occur under either condition.
Experiential Background
42 | P a g e
Figure 2
Teacher Variables
Does the teacher have the training and experience to work effectively with multicultural
population?
What resources has the teacher utilized in attempting to resolve the problem?
o district resources (instructional supervisors, inservice training, media and
materials)
o volunteers
o community resources
o colleagues
o external consultants
o professional associations

Culture
43 | P a g e
Has the teacher gathered cultural information specific to the student and his/her family?
o native/traditional versus immigrant group
o parent interviews
o student interviews
o home visits
Does the teacher incorporate aspects of the student's culture into the curriculum?
o pluralistic goals, perspectives
o integrating information across subject areas versus isolating units or
o presenting fragmented bits of information around holidays, festivals, etc.
o accurate representation of culture and contribution of the group
Language Proficiency
Are the teacher's language skills adequate to deliver instruction in the student's native
language?
If the student is not in bilingual education, what resources have been utilized to provide
native language support?
Is the teacher adequately trained to provide dual language instruction? English-as-asecond-language
intervention?
Were the student's linguistic characteristics addressed by the teacher in planning
instruction?
o Comprehensible input is provided.
o Focus of instruction is on meaning rather than error correction.
o There are opportunities for English language acquisition.
Teaching Style/Learning Style
Is the teacher aware of his/her own preferred teaching style?
Is the teacher aware of the student's preferred learning style?
Does the teacher use a variety of styles to accommodate various learning styles of
students? Is the student's style addressed.
Expectations/Perceptions
What are the teacher's perceptions of the student?
Are expectations and level of instruction geared to higher levels of thinking?
How does the teacher view cultural diversity in the classroom?
How do these views influence expectations as well as instructional planning?
Student Characteristics
The complexity of providing appropriate instructional opportunities is immediately apparent when
one considers the diversity of characteristics among language minority students. Those

characteristics discussed in the following sections (and see Figure 3) serve only to suggest the
range of student variables which must be considered in planning instruction. A comprehensive
description of background and experiences is required to make instruction uniquely appropriate to
the student. The prereferral process should verify that the teacher has been able to tailor instruction
to the needs of the student in question. Examples of teacher ability to accommodate cultural and
linguistic diversity are also presented in Figure 2.
Language Proficiency. There is wide diversity in the language characteristics of LEP students:
diversity which at one extreme 15 descriptive of individuals reared in communities where the
primary language is Spanish and at the other extreme characteristic of students reared in
environments where the primary language is English. Determining the point on the language
continuum which is most characteristic of students' first and second language skills is important to
choosing the language of instruction (Ortiz, 1984). Language evaluations should produce data
which describe the child's interpersonal communication skills and should emphasize analysis of
English pragmatic skills, rather than structural accuracy (e.g., correctness of phonology, syntax,
grammar). A focus on pragmatic skills is important because LEP students will make numerous
errors on the surface forms of English. Teachers may inaccurately conclude that these errors
suggest a possible language disability rather than that they verity the student's LEP status.
Critical to distinguishing learning disabilities from linguistic differences is the assessment of a
child's academic language proficiency (Cummins, 1984). In addition to evaluating interpersonal
communication skills, assessments should also measure the literacy-related aspects of language.
Procedures which capture whether a child understands teacher-talk (e.g., tests of dictation or story
retelling) and whether she/he can handle the language found in texts (e.g., cloze procedures or
comprehension cheeks which tap evaluation or inferential skills) are recommended. Unless these
skills are measured, teachers may attribute low achievement to learning disabilities when they
may, in fact, be related to lack of academic language proficiency. Frequently, students at greatest
risk of being misdiagnosed as handicapped are those who have received ESL instruction long
enough to acquire basic interpersonal communication skills (approximately 1-2 years), but who
need more time to develop academic language proficiency (approximately 5-7 years).
Culture. Understanding cultural characteristics is an important aspect of distinguishing differences
from handicapping conditions. While some behaviors do not conform to the desired or expected
behaviors of the majority society, they may, nonetheless, be normal given a student's ethnic or
cultural group. Such behaviors are best characterized as differences rather than handicapping
conditions. Educators must learn as much as possible about diversity within cultures, and about the
contemporary culture of students, so they can create learning environments and curricula which are
uniquely compatible with student characteristics, with expectations and desires of parents, and
with school and community norms.
Socio-economic Status. Developmental patterns of children from poverty environments differ from
those of middle class students. When children's experiences do not match those expected by
teachers and schools, teachers may attribute school problems to "deficient" environments and may
lower their expectations for student success (Ortiz & Yates, 1984). Unfortunately, teachers
sometimes fail to recognize that economic differences affect cognitive and learning styles, causing
children to respond in different ways to instruction. For example, children from lower socio-
44 | P a g e

economic backgrounds may have difficulty processing information or profiting from instruction
presented from a framework of independence and intrinsic motivation, if they fail to perceive their
own effort as an important cause of success or failure. These students will not be successful unless
they are taught using strategies compatible with their own cognitive orientations and/or until they
are taught learning to learn strategies (e.g., setting goals, planning for goal attainment, sequencing
behavior, and intrinsic motivation).
Experiential Background
Culture
45 | P a g e
Figure 3
Student Variables
Are there any factors in the student's school history which may be related to the current
difficulty?
o attendance/mobility
o opportunities to learn
o program placement(s)
o quality of prior instruction
Are there any variables related to family history which may have affected school
performance?
o lifestyle
o length of residence in the U.S.
o stress (e.g., poverty, lack of emotional support)
Are there any variables related to the student's medical history which may have affected
school performance?
o vision
o nutrition
o hearing
o trauma or injury
o illness
How is the student's cultural background different from the culture of the school and
larger society? (Mattes & Omark, 1984; Seville-Troike, 1978)
o family (family size and structure, roles, responsibilities, expectations)
o aspirations (success, goals)
o language and communication (rules for adult, adult-child, child-child
o communication, language use at home, non-verbal communication)
o religion (dietary restrictions, role expectations)
o traditions and history (contact with homeland, reason for immigration)
o decorum and discipline (standards for acceptable behavior)
To what extent are the student's characteristics representative of the larger group?
o continuum of culture (traditional, dualistic, atraditional [Ramirez & Casteñeda,
1974])
o degree of acculturation or assimilation
Is the student able to function successfully in more than one cultural setting?
Is the student's behavior culturally appropriate?

Language Proficiency
46 | P a g e
Which is the student's dominant language? Which is the preferred?
o settings (school, playground, home, church, etc.)
o topics (academic subjects, day-to-day interactions)
o speakers (parents, teachers, siblings, peers, etc. )
o aspects of each language (syntax, vocabulary, phonology, use)
o expressive vs. receptive
What is the student's level of proficiency in the primary language and in English?
(Cummins, 1984)
o interpersonal communication skills
o cognitive/academic literacy-related skills
Are the styles of verbal interaction used in the primary language different from those most
valued at school, in English? (Heath, 1986)
o label quests (e.g., What's this? Who?)
o meaning quests (adult infers for child, interprets or asks for explanation)
o accounts (generated by teller, information new to listener, e.g. show & tell,
creative writing)
o eventcasts (running narrative on events as they unfold, or forecast of events in
preparation)
o stories
If so, has the student been exposed to those that are unfamiliar to him/her?
What is the extent and nature of exposure to each language?
o What language(s) do the parents speak to each other?
o What language(s) do the parents speak to the child?
o What language(s) do the children use with each other?
o What television programs are seen in each language?
o Are stories read to the child? In what language(s)?
Are student behaviors characteristic of second language acquisition?
What types of language intervention has the student received?
o bilingual vs. monolingual instruction
o language development, enrichment, remediation
o additive vs. subtractive bilingualism (transition versus maintenance)
Learning Style
Does the student's learning style required curricular/instructional accommodation
o perceptual style differences (e.g., visual vs. auditory learner)
o cognitive style differences (e.g., inductive vs. deductive thinking)
o preferred style of participation (e.g., teacher vs. student directed, small vs. large
group)
If so, were these characteristics accommodated, or were alternative styles taught?
Motivational Influences
Is the student's self-concept enhanced by school experiences?
o School environment communicates respect for culture and language
o student experiences academic and social success
Is schooling perceived as relevant and necessary for success in the student's family and

47 | P a g e
community?
o aspirations
o realistic expectations based on community experience
o culturally different criteria for success
o education perceived by the community as a tool for assimilation
Exposure to the curriculum
The central questions to be answered in determining whether children have had sufficient exposure
to the curriculum are whether they have been taught the subject or skill and/or whether this
instruction has been interrupted. Students experience discontinuity of instruction for a variety of
reasons, including having to stay home to take care of younger brothers and sisters in family
emergencies, fatigue because they work late hours to help support the family, or simply because
they are experiencing so many school-related problems that avoiding school is a way of relieving
the pain of failure. These interruptions of schooling negatively affect academic achievement and, if
not addressed in a timely fashion, can have cumulative effects devastating to future success.
Unless teachers provide ways for underachieving students to catch up with peers, learning
problems which develop are more likely to be associated with the lack of opportunity to learn,
rather than with handicapping conditions. Filling in instructional gaps requires that teachers
understand skill domains (e.g., that reading requires that children have an adequate language
foundation and that they master both word recognition and comprehension skills), so they can
assess each child's entry level skills and sequence instruction accordingly. Figure 4 suggests areas
which should be explored at this stage.
Figure 4
Exposure to the Curriculum
Were skills in question taught?
Did student receive adequate exposure to curriculum?
o In his/her dominant language
o sufficient practice to achieve mastery
Was instruction sensitive to student's level of performance?
o instructional, frustrational, independent levels
o higher level cognitive skills vs. basic skills
Was adequate mastery of skills/concepts ensured prior to moving on to new material?
Higher Cognitive Skills. Cazden (1984) criticizes school effectiveness research because it places
too much emphasis on the development of skills which are easily quantifiable (e.g., math activities
in which answers can be judged as right or wrong) and virtually ignores instruction involving more
complex, abstract concepts and development of critical thinking skills, the outcomes of which are
oftentimes difficult to measure. Cummins (1984) concurs, indicating that the predominant
instructional model, in regular and special education, is based on task analyses which structure

learning in small, sequential steps: students may be able to complete each step but are sometimes
unable to reconstruct the whole task because it has been stripped of meaning. Task analysis is
antithetical, not only to higher order skill development, but in the case of LEP students, to the
acquisition of English as a second language recommends, instead, a reciprocal interaction model in
which the teacher serves as a facilitator of learning, focuses on higher order cognitive skills, and
integrates language use and development into all aspects of curriculum content. Such a model is
expected to produce more effective learners and may decrease the need for specialized intervention
outside the mainstream. The prereferral process should describe the instructional model being
utilized by the teacher to determine whether the approach, in and of itself, is maintaining low
functioning levels and reinforcing marginal, semi-dependent behavior (Harth, 1952).
Basic Skills. Because special education referrals are usually concerned with mastery of basic skills,
the prereferral process should document the extent and nature of prior instruction in these areas. Of
particular interest is the language in which skills were initially taught. It is not uncommon for LEP
students to be referred to special education on the basis of low English skills, even though their
first schooling experiences were in bilingual education programs in which basic skills were taught
in the native language (L1). For these students, a referral would be inappropriate until data such as
the following are analyzed: (a) the child's English (L2) and native language proficiency, (b)
informal assessment results describing level of basic skills functioning in L1 and L2 (c)
information about when the transition to English language instruction occurred, and (d) whether
the child was functioning adequately in the native language at the time of the transition. These data
can help determine whether the child's problems are pedagogically induced as might be the ease,
for example, if English language instruction were begun before the child had adequately mastered
basic skills in L1, or before she/he had acquired appropriate levels of English language
proficiency.
Mastery and Practice. Sufficient time must be allocated for students to achieve subject or skill
mastery and for skills practice. Students are sometimes engaged in independent practice activities
before they have demonstrated adequate understanding of the task, and thus incorrect patterns or
behaviors are reinforced as they work on their own. According to Rosenshine (1983), assuring
adequate exposure to the curriculum requires that a child demonstrate mastery at a level of 95 to
100% accuracy. Berliner (1984) suggests that teachers check students' understanding during lesson
presentations and that pupils first participate in guided or controlled practice during which teachers
monitor performance to be sure that students are working at high levels of accuracy. Only then
should students be involved in independent, unsupervised activities. At the prereferral stages, data
are gathered to describe adequacy of lesson presentations and whether the student has had
sufficient time to master and practice skills. Evidence that the child received appropriate
instruction, but did not profit from it, can later be used to justify a referral for a comprehensive
assent.
Instruction
Before referring a student, teachers should carefully document adaptations of instruction and
programs which have been attempted to improve performance in the mainstream. Adelman (1970)
suggests that instruction be carefully sequenced as follows: (a) teach basic skills, subjects or
concepts; (b) reteach skills or content using significantly different strategies or approaches for the
benefit of students who fail to meet expected performance levels after initial instruction; and (c)
48 | P a g e

efocus instruction on the teaching of pre-requisite skills for students who continue to experience
difficulty even after approaches and materials have been modified. Documentation of this teaching
sequence is very helpful if the child fails to make adequate progress and is subsequently referred to
special education. Referral committees will be able to judge whether the adaptations attempted
were appropriate given the student's background characteristics. It is possible, for example, that a
child will fail to learn to read, even after a teacher attempts several different reading approaches,
because the child is being instructed in English but is not English proficient. In this case, the
interventions would be judged inappropriate and other instructional alternatives would need to be
recommended. Ultimately, if the child qualifies for special education services, information about
prior instruction is invaluable to the development of individualized educational programs, because
the types of interventions which work and those which have met with limited success are already
clearly delineated. Figure 5 delineates types of questions to be asked about instruction.
Instruction should be consistent with what is known about language acquisition and about the
interrelationship between first and second language development. Some research literature
(Cummins, 1984; Krashen, 1982) indicates that the native language may provide the foundation for
acquiring English-as-a-second-language skills. Therefore, strong promotion of native language
conceptual skills may be more effective in providing a basis for English literacy (Cummins, 1984).
Conversely, a premature shift to English only instruction, may interrupt a natural developmental
sequence and may interfere with intellectual and cognitive development. Teachers need to mediate
instruction using both the first and the second language and integrate English development with
subject matter instruction. Along with this, teachers may consider responding to and using cultural
referents during instruction, respecting the values and norms of the home culture even as the norms
of the majority culture are being taught (Tikunoff, 1985). Above all, teachers must communicate
high expectations for students and a sense of efficacy in terms of their own ability to teach
culturally and linguistically diverse students.
49 | P a g e
Figure 5
Instruction
Does the learning environment promote intrinsic motivation?
o relevant activities
o incorporation of students' interests
o addressing student needs
o sensitivity to experiential background
Does the teacher use alternative approaches when there is evidence of a learning
difficulty?
o teach
o reteach using significantly different approaches
o teach prerequisite skills
Does the teacher use strategies that are known to be effective for language minority
students?
o native language and ESL instruction
o genuine dialogue with students
o contextualized instruction
o collaborative learning
o self-regulated learning
Does the teacher use current approaches to the teaching of ESL?

50 | P a g e
o Total Physical Response Approach (Asher, 1979)
o The Natural Approach (Terrell, 1983)
o Sheltered English Teaching (Northcutt & Watson, 1986)
Does the teacher use approaches to literacy development which focus on meaningful
communication?
o shared book experiences (Holdaway, 1979)
o Grave's Writing Workshop (Graves, 1983)
o language experience stories
o dialogue journals (Staton, 1987)
o journals
Evaluation of Instruction
Obviously, any instructional program must involve a continuous monitoring system to determine
whether goals and objectives are being met. In the classroom, evaluation is teacher-driven and
requires that teachers continuously check student progress through daily quizzes, six-week
examinations, or informal observations, for example, and that they provide feedback to students
about academic progress. It does not help to return a student's spelling test or math assignment
with answers marked wrong but no information as to why responses were incorrect and thus, no
indication as to how performance can be improved. Simply marking answers as right or wrong
does not clue the teacher as to how to modify instruction or plan subsequent lessons for students
experiencing difficulty. A data-based approach involving simple, informal observation and
analysis of student work samples is more effective in increasing student achievement (Zigmond &
Miller, 1986). For limited-English-proficient students, data must describe the child's functioning
levels in English and the native language.
The discussions in the preceding sections are not exhaustive, but are simply designed to highlight
that learning problems occur for a variety of reasons. These reasons include a lack of teacher
preparation in the instruction of multi-cultural populations, failure to provide instruction,
instruction that is not consistent with entry level skills or is inappropriately sequenced, and/or the
absence of a system for evaluating and modifying instruction as needed. Consequently, there will
be instances when intervention will be focused on teachers and programs, rather than on students.
Step 5
Do student difficulties persist?
If, after evidence is provided that systematic efforts were made to identify the source of difficulty
and to take corrective action, student difficulties persist, the next step in the process is to explore
other programming alternatives within the mainstream.
Step 6
Have other programming alternatives been tried?

If the student's problem cannot be resolved by the bilingual education or ESL teacher, it may be
possible for students to be served through compensatory education programs which provide
remedial instruction (i.e., Chapter 1, migrant education, or tutorial programs). If such placements
are not readily available, referral to special education can become a "trigger" response when
teachers are unable to improve students' achievement.
Effective use of compensatory programs as an alternative to referral requires that teachers
understand the purpose of these alternative programs and that they be familiar with eligibility
criteria for placement (which students are served by which program). Procedures to coordinate
consideration for eligibility across such programs should be developed. For example, when tests
and other measures used to determine eligibility vary from program to program, data gathered
during assessment for one program may not necessarily provide information that would qualify a
student for another, more appropriate, service. Such parallel yet separate processes tend to hinder
timely services to students who need them, and increase the burden of testing for both assessment
personnel and students.
Finally, it is important that alternative programs be supplemental to, rather than a replacement for,
regular classroom instruction and that appropriateness of instruction provided by such services is
evaluated as carefully as was instruction in the classroom (see Step 4). Unless these issues are
addressed, misplacements in special education can continue to occur despite the availability of
these options (Garda, 1984).
51 | P a g e
Step 7
Do difficulties continue in spite of alternatives?
If mainstream alternatives prove to be of no avail, then a referral to special education is
appropriate. The evidence most critical to determining eligibility will accompany the referral, i.e.,
verification that (a) the school's curriculum is appropriate; (b) the child's problems are documented
across settings and personnel, not only m school, but also at home; (c) difficulties are present both
in the native language and in English; (d) the child has been taught but has not made satisfactory
progress; (e) the teacher has the qualifications and experience to effectively teach the student; and
(f) instruction has been continuous, appropriately sequenced, and has included teaching of skills
prerequisite to success. A child who does not learn after this type of systematic, quality
intervention is a likely candidate for special education. The referral indicates that a decision has
been reached that the child cannot be served by regular education programs alone and that she/he
may be handicapped. A comprehensive assessment is requested to determine the nature of the
handicapping condition.
While at fist glance the model may seem overwhelming, several factors should be kept in mind.
First of all, the model suggests the characteristics of effective instruction and thus can be used
proactively to develop classroom environments conducive to student success. Moreover, it
pinpoints variables which influence student performance, making it easier for teachers to diagnose
causes of problems and to attempt solutions. When interventions attempted by teachers fail to yield
improved performance. Teacher Assistance Teams provide a relatively simple and cost-effective

vehicle for providing additional support to regular classroom teachers in the problem-solving
process.
SUMMARY
Prereferral intervention should be a formal process, governed by a clearly recognizable set of
procedures, accepted and followed by all personnel on a district or campus-wide basis, and located
under the jurisdiction of regular education. There, are major benefits to be gained from the
successful implementation of such a process. Serving students in the mainstream is more cost
effective than placement in special education, particularly if the student is underachieving, but not
handicapped. More importantly, perhaps, are the long-term benefits for students themselves who
will have a greater chance of achieving their social, political, and economic potential because they
are provided an appropriate education. Unless dropout rates among LEP students are decreased
and academic achievement of these students is improved, the loss of earning power, and the
concomitant drain on society's resources, will continue to be astronomical. Development of
prereferral interventions, in which the major goal is to improve the effectiveness of regular
education for language minority students, seems a very cost-effective investment in the future.
52 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Adelman, H. (1970). An interactive view of causality. Academic Therapy, 6, 43-52.
Asher, J. (1979). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher's guidebook.
Los Gatos, CA: Skyoak Productions.
Bergen, J., & Smith, J.O. (1966). Effects of socioeconomic status and sex on prospective teachers'
judgments. Mental Retardation, 4, 13-15.
Berliner, D.C. (1984). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In P.L. Hosford (Ed.),
Using what we know about teaching (pp. 511-77). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
(ERIC Abstract)
Cazden, C. (1984). Effective instructional practices in bilingual education. Washington, D.C.:
National Institute of Education.
(ERIC Abstract)
Chalfant, J.C. & Pysh, M.V. (1981, November). Teacher assistance teams--A model for within
building problem solving, Counterpoint, 16-21.
Chalfant, J.C., Pysh, M.V. & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for withinbuilding
problem solving, Learning Disability Quarterly, (2) 3, 85-96.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.
Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Garcia, S. B. (1984). "Effects of student characteristics, school programs and organization on
decision-making for the placement of Hispanic students in classes for the learning disabled." Ph.D.
Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Gay, G. (1981). Interactions in the culturally pluralistic classroom. In J.A. Banks (Ed.), Education
in the 80's: Multiethnic education. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1973). Looking in classrooms. New York: Harper & Row.
Graden, J.L., Casey, A., & Christenson, S.L. (1985). Implementing a prereferral intervention
system: Part 1. The model. Exceptional Children, 51, 377-387.
Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Books.
(ERIC Abstract)
Harth, R. (1982). The Feuerstein perspective on the modification of cognitive performance. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 15 (3), 1-12.
(ERIC Abstract)
Heath, S.B. (1986). Sociocultural contexts of language development. In California State
Department of Education, Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language
minority students (pp. 143-186). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment
Center, California State University.
(NCBE Abstract)
Heller, K.A., Holtzman, W.H. & Messick, S., (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special
education: A strategy for equity. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.
Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educational Books,
Inc.
(ERIC Abstract)
Jackson, G. & Cosca, C. (1974). The inequality of educational opportunity in the Southwest: An
observational study of ethnically mixed classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 11,
219-229.
Kaskowitz, D.H. (1977). Validation of state counts of handicapped children. Volume II -
Estimation of the number of handicapped children in each state. Prepared for DHEW, Bureau of
Education for the Handicapped (Contract No. 300-76 60513); Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research
Institute.
(ERIC Abstract)
53 | P a g e

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:
Pergammon Press.
(NCBE Abstract)
Mattes, L., & Omark, D. (1984). Speech and language assessment for the bilingual handicapped.
San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
(NCBE Abstract)
Northcut, M.S. & Watson, D. (1986). Sheltered English teaching handbook. Carlsbad, CA:
Northcutt, Watson, Gonzales.
(NCBE Abstract)
Ortiz, A.A., Garcia, S.B., Holtzman, Jr., W.H., Polyzoi, E., Snell, Jr., W.E., Wilkinson, C.Y., &
Willig, A.C. (1985). Characteristics of limited English proficient Hispanic students in programs
for the learning disabled: Implications for policy, practice, and research. Austin, TX: The
University of Texas, Handicapped Minority Research Institute on Language Proficiency.
Ortiz, A.A., Garcia, S.B., Wheeler, D., & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986). Characteristics of limited
English proficient students served in programs for the speech and language handicapped:
Implications for policy, practice and research. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, Handicapped
Minority Research Institute on Language Proficiency.
(ERIC Abstract)
Ortiz, A.A., & Yates, J.R. (1984). Linguistically and culturally diverse handicapped students. In
R.S. Podemski, B.M. Price, T.E.C. Smith, G.E. Marsh II (Eds.). Comprehensive administration of
special education (pp. 114-141). Rockville, MD: Aspen Publication.
Ortiz, A.A., & Yates, J.R. (1983). Incidence among Hispanic exceptionals: Implications for
manpower planning. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 7 (3), 41-53.
(ERIC Abstract)
Ramirez, M. & Castenada, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and
education. New York: Academic Press.
NCBE Abstract)
Reynolds, M. (1984). Classification of students with handicaps. In E.W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of
research in education, (Vol. 11) (pp. 63-92). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in
ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411-450.
Rosenshine, B.V. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. Elementary school
Journal, 83, 335-352.
54 | P a g e

Sadker, M. & Sadker, D., (1982). Between teacher and student: Overcoming sex bias in classroom
interaction. In M. Sadker and D. Sadker (eds.), Sex equity handbook for schools. New York:
Longman.
These publications were prepared under Contract No. 300860069 for the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority
Languages Affairs (OBEMLA), U.S. Department of Education. The contents of these publications do not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of the Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products,
or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
This digital version was prepared by ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education,
Teachers College, Columbia University as part of its subcontract activities with NCBE.
55 | P a g e

56 | P a g e
APPENDIX C-2
EAC West, New Mexico Highlands University, Albuquerque, June, 1996
EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT FOR TITLE VII PROJECTS--HANDOUTS
Identifying Limited English Proficient Students
The following information gives some general guidelines for identifying limited English proficient
students and for establishing exit criteria. State Departments of Education and/or School District
offices may have specific, required procedures for identifying and exiting students from programs;
be sure to contact the appropriate offices before implementing the suggestions herein.
Identifying Limited English Proficient Students
What skill areas?
Several skill areas should be included when identifying students. Below are several of
these, with some suggested assessment procedures. It is not possible to state absolute entry
criteria that are applicable and relevant in every situation. The informed judgement of
knowledgeable school personnel is critical. With that in mind, consider the following
questions for program entry:
• Is the student limited in English proficiency? How limited? and in what skills?
• What cognitive skills and abilities, including native language skills and abilities, does the
student bring?
• What skills or abilities does the student need to develop before receiving mainstream
instruction?
What scores?
One cut-off score never should be used. Instead, develop a "bandwidth" of scores to
indicate that further testing is necessary.
• Example: a score above 50 might indicate proficiency and below 35 indicate nonproficiency
with scores between 35 and 50 suggesting that a further set of assessments is
necessary to determine more accurately "true" proficiency.
Skill Areas to be Tested
The following areas should be assessed using alternative assessments or nationally available
assessments -- as long as the assessment matches the district's definition of proficiency and the
district's purpose for assessing (e.g., an achievement test should not be used for measuring
proficiency).
Language Background
• Home language survey
• Home language interview

57 | P a g e
English Language Proficiency and Native Language Proficiency
• Oral language
-Oral language sample
-Story retelling
-Criterion-referenced or norm-referenced standardized oral language test in conjunction
with oral language sample and/or story retelling.
• Reading proficiency
-Cloze texts
-Criterion-referenced or norm-referenced standardized reading test
-Miscue analysis
• Writing proficiency
-Functional dictation
-Writing sample/free composition
-Criterion-referenced norm-referenced standardized writing test in conjunction with
writing sample
• Other
-Review of student's educational history
English and Native Language Subject Content Achievement
• Functional language tests
• Standardized achievement tests
• Review of grades
Previous Instructional Experiences
• Interviews with parents and students
• Review of existing records
• Observations
• Interview with former teachers
Procedures for Identifying English Learners: Pros and Cons
Method of
Identification
At Registration:
Every child goes
through
registration. A
routine question
about home
language is an
efficient way to
begin to identify
LEP.
Home Language
Survey: HLS
deter-mines
Questions to Ask/
Behaviors to Observe
•Does anyone in your
home usually speak a
language other than
English?
•What language did your
child first learn to speak?
•Does your child usually
or often speak a language
other than English?
•What language do you
speak when you talk to
your children?
Advantages Disadvantages
•Efficient
•Provides
information on
proportion of
possible LEPs in
district
•Establishes
immediate personal
contact with potential
LEP students
•Informal measure
that may provide
insight into child's
•Identification may be
inaccurate or
incomplete
•Written surveys may
not be understood by
parents.

whether any
language use at
home, by the
child or by
another
household
member, may
contribute to
child LEP.
Observation:
Teachers &
others can
informally
observe a child to
determine the
conditions under
which the child is
not proficient in
English.
L1& L2
Language
Proficiency
Instruments: May
be developed
locally (not
advisable) or
commercially.
L1 & L2
Standardized
Achievement
Tests: Many
programs use the
reading and/or
language arts
scores.
58 | P a g e
•What language is most
often spoken at home?
•What language did your
child first learn to speak?
•Does child understand
when spoken to in
English? Does child know
vocabulary words that
peers know?
•Do pronunciation,
grammar, and usage
contain errors that are not
typical of age group?
•Is language other than
English used to interact
with children?
Single instrument or
several must include:
•oral (speaking, listening)
and
•written (reading,
writing).
•Does the test match the
curriculum?
•Are children familiar
with this testing format?
•Are children ready for
this type of test?
language proficiency.
•Can be administered
orally or in writing.
•Written surveys are
efficient for general
screening.
•Observer is able to
see child using
language in context.
•Informal
observation can be
time efficient.
•Documented
reliability and
validity.
•Efficient
administration.
•Measure basic skills
constructs of most
interest in assessing
abilities (i.e.,
reading, language
arts, computation).
•Intuitively
meaningful to most
educators.
•Estimate whether
child has skills
similar to those of
grade mates.
•Interviews are
demanding of staff
time.
•Parents may judge
children's fluency
inaccurately.
•Occasional
observations may not
provide adequate
sample of child's
verbal behavior.
•Observations can be
obtrusive, affecting
the child's verbal
output.
•Many do not include
all 4 areas.
•High performance
does not guarantee all
language skills are
adequate for school.
•Low score alone does
not indicate LEP.
•Tests given
districtwide in spring,
may be impractical to
administer at other
times.
•No empirical
rationale for a given
cut-off score as
criterion for entry into
program.

L1 & L2 Locally
Developed Tests:
Provide
information
about
performance in
curriculumrelated
skills.
59 | P a g e
These might include:
•Unit tests
•Reading inventories or
comprehension tests
•Writing samples
•Portfolios
•High content
validity
•May take too much
time for entry
decisions.
•Questionable
reliability and validity
information.
The other topic in the Identification of Limited English Proficient Students category is:
Sample Instruments for the Identification of Limited English Proficient Students
Return to the Table of Contents for other categories.

Schools must inform parents annually regarding their child’s placement in a language instruction
education program within 30 days after the beginning of the school year, or within two weeks of
the child’s placement within a program. [Section 3302(a) and (c)]
60 | P a g e

Question and Answer
What happens to limited-English proficient (LEP) students who are not
offered services to help than overcome language barriers?
Limited-English proficient students (also sometimes referred to as English-language
learners) may suffer repeated failure in the classroom, falling behind in grade, and
dropping out of school if they are not provided services to overcome language
barriers. Students who are not proficient in English and sometimes inappropriately
placed in special education classes. Also, because of their lack of English proficiency,
qualified students often do not have access to high track courses or Gifted and
Talented programs.
What is the federal authority requiring districts to address the needs of
English language learners?
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color,
or national origin. In Lau v. Nichols, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the
Department of Education memorandum of May 25, 1970, which directed school
districts to take steps to help limited-English proficient (LEP) students overcome
language barriers and to ensure that they can participate meaningfully in the
district's educational programs
What does Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require for Englishlanguage
learner students?
Federal law requires programs that educate children with limited English proficiency
to be:
1. based on a sound educational theory;
2. adequately supported, with adequate and effective staff and resources, so
that the program has a realistic chance of success; and
3. periodically evaluated and, if necessary, revised.
Does OCR require districts to follow a particular educational approach, such
as bilingual education?
No. OCR does not require or advocate a particular educational approach to the
instruction of ELL students. Districts have substantial flexibility when developing
programs to meet the needs of ELL students.
What if parents do not want their child to have services to address their
English needs?
Parents can opt to not have their children enrolled in an ELL program.
When a parent declines participation, the district retains a responsibility to ensure
that the student has an equal opportunity to have his or her English language and
academic needs met. Districts can meet this obligation in a variety of ways (e.g.
adequate training to classroom teachers on second language acquisition; monitoring
the educational progress of the student).
How long does a district have to provide special services to ELL students?
ELL students must be provided with alternative services until they are proficient
enough in English to participate meaningfully in the regular program.
61 | P a g e

To determine whether a child is ready to exit, a district must consider such factors as
the students' ability to keep up with their non-ELL peers in the regular education
program and their ability to participate successfully without the use of adapted or
simplified English materials. Exit criteria must include some objective measure of a
student's ability to read, write, speak and comprehend English.
62 | P a g e

Resources
Inclusion of a link is not an endorsement of the views expressed, the products or services offered,
nor of the organizations sponsoring the web sites. Retrieved June 27, 2011 from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/otherresources.html.
63 | P a g e
General Resources on the Web
California Department of Education. This site contains information on education issues, instructional
resources, lesson plans, curriculum and designing a standards-based accountability system for evaluating
programs for ELL students. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/
Center for Applied Linguistics. CAL is a private non-profit organization that aims to promote and improve
the teaching and learning of languages. This is a resource for information on teaching and learning
languages, and information about language and culture. The Center for Research on Education, Diversity
and Excellence (CREDE), whose purpose is to identify and develop effective educational practices for
linguistic and cultural minority students, is located in the CAL site. http://www.cal.org
Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research, University of Southern California. This site provides a
variety of resources and other web links to ESL/Bilingual Resources. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~cmmr/
ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics. This site contains a long list of articles relating to
language learning, using resources from within language-minority communities, model programs, and
integrating world language-learning with other subject matter classes. http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/
Kristina Pfaff's Linguistic Funland. This commercial site was created in 1994 by a graduate student in
linguistics and provides a list of various linguistics links on a personal homepage. This site includes a list of
resources for language teaching and learning, linguistics, study, and other miscellaneous resources.
http://www.linguistic-funland.com/
National Association for Bilingual Education. NABE is a national membership organization dedicated to
address the educational needs of language-minority students in the U.S. and to advance the language
competencies and multicultural understanding of all Americans. http://www.nabe.org/
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. The NCBE provides information on language education
for minority students, bilingual education, and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL). This site contains
information on designing, implementing, and evaluating programs for ELL students.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. NWREL operates a technical assistance center serving the
northwest states. The center provides information on educational programs and general school
improvement to meet the needs of special populations of children and youth, including ELL students.
http://www.nwrel.org/ The Equity Center provides additional useful information.
http://www.nwrel.org/cnorse/index.html
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), Washington State. This site provides information on
the programs operated by OSPI and a number of education links. This site contains information on
culturally and linguistically diverse students and special education services. http://www.k12.wa.us/

Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages, Inc. TESOL's mission is to develop the expertise of its
members and others involved in teaching English to speakers of other languages to help them foster
effective communication in diverse settings while respecting individuals' language rights. This
international organization is one of the largest professional organizations for professionals in second
language acquisition and contains a variety of information about the subject.
http://www.tesol.edu/index.html
University of Texas at Austin, College of Education. This site provides links to bilingual education
resources on the internet. http://www.edb.utexas.edu/education/centers/obe/
The U.S. Department of Education. This is the Department's home page and serves as a resource and a
gateway to other useful web pages, http://www.ed.gov/, including the Office for Civil Rights (OCR),
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/
The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs
(OBEMLA). Established in 1974 by Congress, OBEMLA helps school districts meet their responsibility to
provide equal educational opportunity to ELL children. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OBEMLA/
The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). Provides
national leadership for educational research and statistics. This web site has links to education statistics,
research, and technical assistance. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/
Educational Theory
64 | P a g e
Resources for Developing ELL Program
"LEP Students and Title I: A Guide-book for Educators." This guidebook provides analysis and guidance on
providing services to ELL students through a Title I program.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/resource/lepguide
"The Newcomer Program: Helping Immigrant Students Succeed in U.S. Schools." This article provides
information on the design and implementation of newcomer programs in a district.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/pigs/pig8.htm
Program Goals
"Creating Appropriate Goals and Objectives." This handout provides information on developing goals for
programs that serve ELL students in relationship to overall program design.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/eacwest/handouts/
goal-obj/backgrnd.htm

Identification of Potential ELL Students
"Handbook of English language Proficiency Tests." This guide provides an overview of
assessing English language proficiency, details regarding five different tests, and a
checklist for selecting an appropriate test for a district's needs.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/eacwest/elptests.htm
"Identifying Limited-English-Proficient Students." This handout provides information on
identifying ELL students and establishing transition and/or exit criteria. The handout also
includes sample instruments for identifying ELL students.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/eacwest/handouts/
id-lep/backgrnd.htm
Assessment of ELL Status
"Assessment in ESL & Bilingual Education - A Hot Topic Paper." An overview of assessing
language proficiency, review of assessment instruments, achievement testing, and special
education assessments, by Gary Hargett, Ph.D. http://www.nwrac.org/pub/hot/assessment.html
Program Design
"The ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students." These standards were developed by TESOL to
complement the discipline-specific standards created by other professional groups.
http://www.tesol.edu/assoc/k12standards/index.html
Special Programs
"Gifted and Talented Students: Definitions and Suggestions for Identification." This handout provides
information on how to identify students from diverse cultures for GATE programs, and includes sample
instruments. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/eacwest/handouts/
gifted/backgrnd.htm
65 | P a g e
Resources for Evaluating EL Programs
"A Portfolio Assessment Model for ESL." This guide provides detailed information on the design,
implementation, and use of portfolios in assessment.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/jeilms/vol13/portfo13.htm
"Evaluation and Assessment for Title VII Projects." This guide contains information on a variety of topics,
including creating appropriate goals & objectives, identification of gifted and talented students, and
evaluators. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/eacwest/handouts/
"Evaluation Handbook." This handbook provides a detailed overview of the entire evaluation process
under the following sections: overview, thinking about the evaluation, planning the evaluation,
implementing the evaluation, and writing the evaluation.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/eacwest/evalhbk.htm

"Informal Assessment In Education Evaluation: Implications For Bilingual Education Programs."
This guide describes alternative assessment approaches and discusses how these approaches can
supplement standardized tests. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/pigs/pig3.htm
66 | P a g e
Other Resource Sites
"The English-as-a-Second Language/ Bilingual Framework," Washington State OSPI. Contains
information on program design, and program staffing and resources. Authored by Phillip C.
Gonzales, Ed.D. (Not on a web site at this time.)
Terminology
What terminology is commonly used in bilingual and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL)
education? http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/glossary.html

67 | P a g e

Year Timeline -
Year 1
AMAO
Determination
Not
Meeting
AMAO’s
68 | P a g e
Did not make
AMAOs
Alabama AMAO Accountability Plan
Timeline -
Year 2
Did not make
AMAOs for the
second
consecutive year
Timeline -
Year 3
Did not make
AMAOs for the
third consecutive
year
Timeline - Year
4
Did not make
AMAOs for the
fourth consecutive
year
Timeline- Year 5
Did not make
AMAOs for the fifth
or more consecutive
year
Support for districts and schools that do not meet AMAOs will be provided by English Learner (EL)
Coaches. EL Coaches are assigned to work with districts identified as not meeting AMAOs for two or
more consecutive years. EL Coaches support districts and a target school not making AMAOs through
ongoing, comprehensive training, and consistent communications about EL improvement strategies.
District
invited to
attend a Title
III Data
Retreat and
additional
professional
development
sponsored by
the SDE and
the SI EL
coaches.
District invited to
attend a Title III
Data Retreat and
additional
professional
development
sponsored by the
SDE and the SI
EL coaches.
District must
develop a LEA
Improvement
Plan:
addresses the
factors that
prevented the
LEA from
meeting the
AMAOs,
includes input
(from teachers,
administrators,
and
community
members),
aligns to the
state English
language
proficiency
standards and
assessments
District invited to
attend a Title III
Data Retreat and
additional
professional
development
sponsored by the
SDE and the SI
EL coaches.
District must
develop a LEA
Improvement
Plan:
addresses the
factors that
prevented the
LEA from
meeting the
AMAOs,
includes input
(from teachers,
administrators,
and
community
members),
aligns to the
state English
language
proficiency
standards and
assessments
District invited to
attend a Title III
Data Retreat and
additional
professional
development
sponsored by the
SDE and the SI EL
coaches.
District must
develop a LEA
Improvement Plan:
addresses the
factors that
prevented the
LEA from
meeting the
AMAOs,
includes input
(from teachers,
administrators,
and community
members),
aligns to the
state English
language
proficiency
standards and
assessments and
links with the
state content and
Any school that does
not meet AMAOs for
six consecutive years
is identified for
AMAO
Improvement Year 5
– Restructuring.
The local school
principal and local
superintendent will
meet with the State
Title III Coordinator
to review previous
plans for
improvement and
determine next steps.
District must develop
a LEA Improvement
Plan:
addresses the
factors that
prevented the
LEA from
meeting the
AMAOs,
includes input
(from teachers,
administrators,
and community
members),
aligns to the state
English language
proficiency
standards and
assessments and
links with the state
content and
achievement

69 | P a g e
and
links with the
state content
and
achievement
standards
The LEA must
write an LEA
Improvement Plan
(LIP) no later than
three (3) months
after notification
of AMAO status.
The plan should
cover a two-year
period and include
all of the required
components. The
district must post
the LEA
Improvement Plan
using the template
based on NCLB
Section
1116(C)(7)(A)(iviii)
in the eGAP
Document
Library. These
plans must
continue to be
revised or updated
and posted every
year that the LEA
is identified for
any improvement
status. The plan
should
specifically
address the factors
that prevented the
entity from
achieving such
objectives
[Section 3122(b)].
The LEA will
receive technical
assistance from
English Language
(EL) Coaches, as
assigned by the
and
links with the
state content
and
achievement
standards
The LEA must
write an LEA
Improvement Plan
(LIP) no later than
three (3) months
after notification
of AMAO status.
The plan should
cover a two-year
period and include
all of the required
components. The
district must post
the LEA
Improvement Plan
using the template
based on NCLB
Section
1116(C)(7)(A)(iviii)
in the eGAP
Document
Library. These
plans must
continue to be
revised or updated
and posted every
year that the LEA
is identified for
any improvement
status. The plan
should
specifically
address the factors
that prevented the
entity from
achieving such
objectives
[Section 3122(b)].
The LEA will
receive technical
assistance from
English Language
(EL) Coaches, as
assigned by the
achievement
standards
Any district or
school that fails to
meet AMAOs for
four consecutive
years is identified
for AMAO
Improvement Year 3
– Corrective Action.
The local school
principal, local
superintendent, and
appropriate central
office staff will meet
with the State Title
III Coordinator to
review previous
plans for
improvement and
determine next
steps.
The plans for
improvement must
address how the
district or school
will modify the
curriculum,
program, or method
of instruction; or
make a
determination
whether funding
shall continue
related to failure to
meet such
objectives; and
require replacement
of educational
personnel relevant
to the school or
districts failure to
meet such
objectives. [Title
III, Section 3122
(b)(4)]
District must review
staff and add or
change staff if
necessary.
standards
Any school that does
not meet AMAOs for
six consecutive years
is identified for
AMAO
Improvement Year 5
– Restructuring.
The local school
principal and local
superintendent will
meet with the State
Title III Coordinator
to review previous
plans for
improvement and
determine next steps.
District must submit
a plan that includes a
modification of the
curriculum and
method of
instruction.

70 | P a g e
SDE. As
appropriate,
technical
assistance will be
provided to
schools within the
LEA that have not
met AMAOs. EL
Coaches will
support district
and school teams
with developing
scientifically
research based
professional
development
strategies and
activities that will
be used to meet
objectives. All
strategies and
activities must be
incorporated into
the LEA Plan and
monitored for
implementation.
[Section 3122(b)].
Additionally, the
LEA must provide
written notice
about the school’s
status to parents
of each student
identified for
participation in
such program, or
participating in
such program, of
failure not later
than 30 days after
being notified that
AMAOs were not
met. [Section
3302(b)]
SDE. As
appropriate,
technical
assistance will be
provided to
schools within the
LEA that have not
met AMAOs. EL
Coaches will
support district
and school teams
with developing
scientifically
research based
professional
development
strategies and
activities that will
be used to meet
objectives. All
strategies and
activities must be
incorporated into
the LEA Plan and
monitored for
implementation.
[Section 3122(b)].
Additionally, the
LEA must provide
written notice
about the school’s
status to parents
of each student
identified for
participation in
such program, or
participating in
such program, of
failure not later
than 30 days after
being notified that
AMAOs were not
met. [Section
3302(b)]