title iii summer conference june 16, 2015 embassy suites charleston, wv
TRANSCRIPT
Title III Summer Conference
June 16, 2015
Embassy Suites
Charleston, WV
U.S. Department of EducationTitle III Monitoring
Element 2.2 – Local Plan -High Quality Programs (Service)
Element 2.3 – Immigrant Grant
Element 2.4 – Private School Participation
Element 3.2 – Fiscal Allocation – RESA
Element 3.4 – Supplement, Not Supplant
PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Program Operations
• USDE Title III Monitoring March 2014 Monitoring (3 Counties)
October 2014 Monitoring Report
– Plans (ESEA Application Process) – Levels of Service– Private School Participation– Toolkit
Program Operations – Plans (ESEA Application)
• Title III specific goals• Federal Title III Funding/State ESL Funding• Budget sheet• Title III tab
– New Consortium Model– Teacher/Student– State ESL (each county)– Federal Title III (consortium lead)
Program Operations – Plans (ESEA Application)
• Title III specific goalsExamples– As measured by West Virginia English Language
Proficiency Assessment, no less than twenty percent (20%) of LEA’s English Language Learners students in fourth through twelfth grades will increase one proficiency level during the 2015-16 school year.
– All school staff who will work with ELLs will receive Title III related professional development
Program Operations – Plans (ESEA Application)
• Federal Title III Funding/State ESL Funding
Program Operations – Plans (ESEA Application)
• New Consortia Model
Under the Title III program, if a county does not have a sufficient number of English language learners (ELLs) enrolled to qualify for a minimum subgrant of $10,000, the county can only receive funding by participating jointly in consortia with other districts.
9 consortia
2 individual counties
Program Operations – Plans (ESEA Application)
• Title III tab– State Section (each county)
All counties will individually complete the appropriate Title III components of the application – Teacher/Student – WVSIPP– Federal Section (consortia lead county)
This section is submitted by the Consortium lead. The narrative and services described in this section will reflect the collective plan of the consortium developed through meaningful consultation and consensus.
– All counties wishing to opt out of the assigned consortium and not receive Title III federal and state funds will need to indicate their intentions via the program opt out form prior to June 16 of each year. Please note that counties are still required to provide service to English language learners regardless of participating in Title III programming.
Program Operations – Level of Service
• ESEA Application– Ratio – Teacher : Students
– Examples of when the Departments have identified compliance issues in staffing and resourcing an ELL program include when school districts
• Offer language assistance services based on staffing levels and teacher availability rather than student need
• Utilize mainstream teachers, paraprofessionals, or tutors rather than fully qualified ESL teachers for ESL instruction
• Provide inadequate training to general education teachers who provide core content instruction to ELL students
Program Operations – Level of Service
• Proficiency Level 4 and 5– Students in ELL programs must receive appropriate language assistance
services until they are proficient in English and can participate meaningfully in the district’s educational program without language assistant services.
– Examples of when Departments have identified compliance issues• Exclude kindergarteners or ELL students with scheduling conflicts from their other
programs• Supplement regular education instruction with only ides who tutor EL students as
opposed to teachers adequately trained to deliver the ELL program• Fail to offer an ELL program to certain subset of ELL students, such as students with
disabilities or students speaking particular languages• Stop providing language assistance services when ELL students reach higher levels
of English Proficiency but have not met exit criteria
• Resources
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/chap3.pdf
Program Operations – Private School Participation
• LEA must provide meaningful and timely consultation with private school officials regarding participation in ESEA program services. (Title III)
• After timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials, local education agencies (LEAs) receiving Title III funds must provide educational services to limited English proficient (LEP) children and educational personnel in private schools that are located in the geographic area served by the LEA.
Program Operations – Private School Participation
• To ensure timely and meaningful consultation, the LEA must consult with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of the Title III program on issues such as:1. How the LEP children’s needs will be identified
2. What services will be offered
3. How, where and by whom the services will be provided
4. How the services will be assessed and how the results of the assessment will be used to improve those services.
5. The size and scope of the services to be provided to the private school children and educational personnel.
6. The amount of funds available for those services.
7. How and when the LEA will make decisions about the delivery of services, including a thorough consideration of the views of the private school officials on the provision of contract services through potential third-party providers.
Program Operations – Private School Participation
• Title III services provided to children and educational personnel in private schools must be equitable and timely and address their educational needs.
• Funds provided for educational services for private school children and educational personnel must be equal, taking into account the number and educational needs of those children, to the funds provided for participating public school children.
• Title III services provided to private school children and educational personnel must be secular, neutral, and nonideological.
• LEAs may serve private school LEP children and educational personnel either directly or through contracts with public and private agencies, organizations and institutions.
Program Operations – Private School Participation
• The control of funds used to provide services and the title to materials and equipment purchased with those funds must be retained by the LEA.
• Services for private school children and educational personnel must be provided by employees of the LEA or through a contract made by the LEA with a third party.
• Providers of services to private school children and educational personnel must be independent of the private school and of any religious organization, and the providers' employment or contract must be under the control and supervision of the LEA.
• Funds used to provide services to private school children and educational personnel must not be commingled with nonfederal funds.
Resource: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/title3-factsheet.html
Program Operations - Toolkit
• Toolkit project group• Highlight
– Most updated information– Responsibilities – Resources – Assessment – Accommodations (Designated
Support)
• Schedule
ELPA21 OPERATIONALIZATION
-Communication & Outreach-Professional Development Supports-Timeline of Development Activities-Screener -Range Finding-State Timeline
ELPA21 Insider Newsletter Features
February 19, 2015
March 23, 2015
http://www.elpa21.org/news-events/elpa21-action
ELPA21 Social Media: Twitter and FacebookELPA21 is now on Facebook and Twitter
Overarching Goal of PD Task Team• For Teachers By Teachers Philosophy
• Maximize Implementation of the ELP Standards with Fidelity in the Field• Connect Language and Content for ALL Teachers • Assist Content Teachers in Providing High Quality/Accessible Instruction to ELs through the ELP Standards
Modules and Guiding QuestionsModule 1- Overview
• What does every educator working with ELs need to know about the standards?
Module 2- Task Analysis• What are students using language to do?
Module 3- ELP Standards• What standards are assessed by the task?
Module 4- Proficiency Level Descriptors• How deeply does the student understand class content and language?
Module 5- Formative Assessment• How do teachers scaffold for access to demonstrate understanding of class
content?
Module 6- Reflection • How do we reflect on our practice to identify how and where to support English
Learners as they negotiate class content?
Tentative Timeline: March – October 2015March through May
• Building the Framework• Storming/Norming the TMTs• Draft Prototype of Module 2
June• Pilot Module 2• Develop Module 1
July• Develop Module 3
August• Handoff Modules 1-2• Develop Modules 4-5
September• Handoff Modules 3-5• Develop Module 6
October• Handoff Module 6
NEW! PD Web pageelpa21.org > ELP Standards > Professional Development
NEW! ELP Standards Resourceselpa21.org > ELP Standards > ELP Standards Resources
New ELP Standards Resources
Where can you find them?elpa21.org
ELP Standards Pull-Out DocumentsOrganization of the Standards one-pager Alternate Organization of the ELP Standards one-pager
Standards Supporting DocsReformatted ELP Standards at a Glance (in progress)ELP Standards Overview (in progress)ELP Standards “change graphic” old to new ELP standards (in progress)
Upcoming Toolkit MaterialsEducator Spotlight: Newsletter Feature (in progress)Parent Packet - fallEducator Packet - fall
DRAFT: ELP Standards “Change” Infographic
OPERATIONAL YEAR ONE DEVELOPMENT
TRANSITION SUPPORT – BEHIND THE SCENES
APRIL – AUGUST 2015
Field Test Findings: identify necessary changes to layouts and functionality
Item Specifications: review and revisions by task type
Item Cleanup: revising items to meet spec and field test findings
Technical Specifications: Standardize .xml; develop art specifications
Metadata QC: ensuring correctness and consistency across data sets
Item Bank Layouts: developing db architecture and table structure
TRANSITION PLAN
Overview
Prepare for item bank handoff
Provide platform requirements
Support development of practice tests (interactive demos)
Support development of manuals and training materials, including assessment guide
Provide test form planners to support form development
TRANSITION PLAN
May 2015:
Manual Templates* Test Administrator’s Manual
Test Coordinator’s Manual
Accessibility and Accommodations Manual
* Vendors develop/ deliver proprietary Software Installation Guide
Training Modules – to support development of vendor training materials
TRANSITION PLAN
May 2015:
Technical Specifications Standardized .xml coding for interactions that exceed APIP
v1.0
Art and display specifications
Tools and accessibility support requirements
TRANSITION PLAN
June 2015:
Sample Item batch (167 items spanning all task types)
Allows vendor to orient to item layouts and code
Used to build Interactive Demos/Practice Tests
TRANSITION PLAN
July 2015:
Practice test (ID) layouts
Practice test lesson plans
TRANSITION PLAN
September 2015:
Handoff final ELPA21 Item Specifications
Handoff Operational ELPA21 Item Bank*
October 2015
Handoff Assessment Framework
Final metadata
Form planners for summative forms, b/lv forms, accommodated paper form
*Rescored items will follow in a separate batch to be cloned by vendor
TRANSITION PLAN
October – December 2015
In-platform item reviews
Test administration platform - user acceptance testing, including testing tools
ELPA21 Screener
Screener Requirements•Include educator focus groups, small-scale trials, pilot tests, and field tests. •Phase I, steps 2-4, and Phase II are computer administered. •Minimize one on one time required for administration and overall administration time, while maximizing placement information
•Require the most testing time for students who are near proficient, avoid over-testing of beginners
•Only one form per grade/grade-band should be developed and used each year•Differentiate technology literacy from language proficiency•Apply EL learning theory to classification, by assessing language proficiency in the order in which language is learned (listening, then speaking, then reading, and lastly, writing.)
•Phase I plus Phase II will use same cut scores as screener and produce a similar/identical report.
•Assess skills that can be machine scored before assessing skills requiring hand scoring, saving time by requiring hand scoring only for those students who are nearly proficient
Ineligible
English Language Learner
(Local) Home Language Survey
Potential ELL
Potential ELL
Phase II screenerMachine scorable items
initially, hand scored items presented last and only to students close to
proficiency
English Only Speaker
Ineligible
Phase I Screener*
*Potential ELLs may exit at each step as they are unable to continue..
Step 1: Greeting
Step 2: Test Instructions & Directions
Step 4: Interaction with Content Knowledge
Step 3: Interaction with Technology
English Language Proficient
ELPA21 ScreenerTwo-Phase Screening ProcessTo Determine Eligibility for EL Learner Programs
Technology Beginner (P&P)
Parent Notification
FinishStart30 days
English Language Learner
EL Program Placement
Same items as Summative, machine scored items first, then hand scored
Proficient Proficient Proficient
-Listening Advanced Advanced -Speaking Advanced
-Reading Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate
Beginning Beginning Beginning
-Writing Pre-Functional Pre-Functional Pre-Functional
Reception / Comprehension Production Interaction
Comprehension
Production
If one or more scores fall in this area, administer Phase II Screener
If both scores fall in this area, student is not eligible for ELL services and needs no further screening
Listening Newcomer Beginner At Grade-Level
Speaking Newcomer Beginner At Grade-Level
Reading Newcomer Beginner At Grade-Level
Writing Newcomer Beginner At Grade-Level
Interaction
Two-Phase Screener: Scores and Score Reports
Screener Phase 1: Report
Screener Phase 1: Report (Same as Summative Assessment Report)
Screener Components
•One screener form per grade/grade band, per year•Screener Blueprints•Screener Development Report•Administration Manual•Training Materials•Parent Notification Letter•Score Reports (Different for Phase 1 and 2, phase 2 is same as summative reports)
•Annual Technical Report •Research Agenda
May 2016 Standard Setting. Set summative cut scores on FT data, apply to Phase II screener
April 2015 Screener Task Force Finalizes Screener Design
Nov 2015 EAPs Review/Rubric Generation/Rangefinding Dec 2016 Task Force creates Phase I prompts, rubrics, adminstration manual, training materials for 1
Screener per Grade/Grade Band
July 2015 Phase I Testlet (Re)Design (60 days)
Aug-Oct 2015 Phase I Testlet Development, 1 Screener per Grade/Grade Band (60 days)
June 2016 Schools must begin to screen registering students within two weeks
Aug 2016 Screener Live
May 2015 Educator Advisory Panels (EAGs) – Screener Design & Feasibility
Jan 2016 Field Trials - Phase I administration, scoring, reporting (in selected state(s) and schools)
Mar 2016 Whole-screener Field Test (in selected state(s) and schools) Feb 2016 Task Force revises based on field trial outcomes
Apr 2016 Field Test data analysis
ELPA21 Operationalization
•ELPA 21 field testing – feedback•WV Participation •Educator feedback
•Range Finding Meeting•4/23-4/27 Minneapolis, MN•About 30 educators from 8 states•Review Rubric/Anchor question
•Other ELPA21 working group•Data review committee – August 2015
ELPA21 Operationalization
•State Timeline•ELPA21 Vendor•ELPA21 Training: Late September •ELPA21 Pre-ID uploading: December – January (?)
•ELPA21 Operational Test: February 2016 (6 weeks)
ELPA21 Operationalization
•ELPA21 Screener: Timeline• Jan 2016 - Field Trials•Mar 2016 – Whole screener field testing•August 2016 – Operational Screener
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium
• Collaboration Between General Education and ESOL Teachers: Benefits and Challenges - April 30 Interactive Webinar https://vimeo.com/125795271
• Presenters: Dr. Megan Madigan Peercy & Dr. Joie Austria
• State Team: Identify State Goals for Collaborative Practices
Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium
• Attributes of Collaboration• Co-Teaching Approach• Successful Collaborative Efforts:
- Shared Tools (Curriculum Framework & Communication Strategy)
- Shared Vision
- Shared Routines and Roles
Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium
State Goals:Utilize the shift embedded within the new ELP
standards to foster collective ownership of student learning between general content teachers and ESL teachers.
Examine shared communication tools to facilitate collaboration.
Connect to existing state Co-Teaching professional development and expand focus.
2015 SUPPORT FOR COLLABORATIVE TEACHING PARTNERSHIP (SCTP)
ACADEMIESNorthern Site June 30-July 2, 2015 Bridgeport Conference Center Bridgeport, WV
Lodging: Wingate by Wyndham Bridgeport, WV (304) 808-1000
http://wvde.state.wv.us/forms/2015/osp/summer-academies/
Professional Development
• Marshall University – ELP Standards Class – CISL 560 Standards for
Content Area Teachers • Fall 2014 – 45 educators (Monongalia, Raleigh, Doddridge)• Spring 2015 – 98 educators (Monongalia, Berkeley,
Putnam, RESA 7 counties)• Summer 2015 – 40 educators (Monongalia, Berkeley)
– ESL Cohort (2015-2017) • Participation Cabell, Clay, Fayette, Hardy, Harrison, Marion, Putnam, Wyoming,
ACCOMMODATIONS & GUIDED SUPPORTS
Guidelines
• Guidelines for Participation in West Virginia State Assessments: Guidance on Designated Supports and Accommodations for State and District Testing
• Stakeholder Meeting: July 15, 2015
General Assessment Conceptual Model
ELPA21 Assessment Conceptual Model
Accommodations & Guided Support Review
Examine the current accommodations and designated supports proposed for ELLs in both the Participation Guidelines and the ELPA 21 Accessibility Guide.
-Discuss the questions provided.
-Record responses as a table.
-Select a representative to share.
Title III Fiscal Considerations
Laura Pauley, CPA
WVDE Office of Federal Programs
Tuesday June 16, 2015
Title III Expenditures
• Are they allowable • Are the allocable• Are they reasonable and necessary to
carry out grant function• Should they be included in the 2% limit as
administrative costs• Do they meet supplement, not supplant
Supplement not Supplant
• Title III, Part A funding is provided to supplement the level of Federal, State, and local public funds that, in the absence of such availability would have been expended for programs for LEP children and immigrant children and youth and in no case to supplant such Federal, State, and local public funds.
[Section 3115(g) of ESEA]
Supplanting is presumed when:
• The LEA uses Federal funds to provide services that they are required to make available under other Federal, State of local laws.
• The LEA uses Federal funds to provide services that the LEA provided with other Federal, State or local funds in the prior year; or
• The same services to Title III students as it provided to non-Title III students with non-Title III funds.
Other Federal Funds
• The supplement not supplant provision in Title III has a significant distinction from other federal programs in that Title III prohibits supplanting of other Federal as well as State and local funds.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
• States, districts, and schools are required to provide core language instruction educational programs and services for ELL students.
• Upheld in Supreme Court Cases Lau v. Nichols and Castaneda v. Pickard
Language Instruction Educational Programs
• The use of Title III funds to provide core language instruction educational programs, including providing for the salaries of ESL teachers of provide those services would be a supplant violation.
• Books and supplies not documented are supplemental expenditures would be a supplant violation.
• These are required services regardless of funding
Annual ELP Assessments • Costs of administering ELP Assessments cannot be
paid for with Title III funds.• These include costs such as:
– Substitute teachers during test administration– The scoring or reporting of results– Materials or equipment related to the administration– If materials/equipment have already been purchased with
Title III funds for supplemental instruction you can use these for assessments without supplant
• Title I already requires annual ELP assessments to be administered annually
Screening and Placement
• The development and administration of screening or placement exams may not be paid for out of Title III or Title I Federal Funds.
• LEAS would still be required to identify ELL’s in the absence of federal funding
Translation & Interpretation
• Allowable costs - supplemental:– Personnel costs for translating written notices – Postage costs for mailing notices– Contract with a translation company that
provides these notices– Translation must be supplemental and for
translation activities that are specific to Title III
Translation & Interpretation
• Unallowable Cost - Supplant– If the LEA communicates with all parents
about their child’s educational progress by mail, it would not be appropriate to use Title III funds to pay for the postage for LEP students.
– Title III funds cannot be used to provide translation/accommodations on assessments.
Other Allowable Costs
• The following items can be provided with Title III funding to LEP children and their families:– Community participation programs– Family literacy services– Parent outreach and training activities
Equitable Services
Private Schools• After timely and meaningful
consultation with appropriate private school officials, LEAs receiving Title III funds must provide educational services to LEP children and personnel in private schools that are located in the geographic area served by the LEA.
Timely & Meaningful Consultation
• Identify LEP students’ needs• Identify services to be offered• How will the services be provided• Funding available for services
Eligibility
• Student must be enrolled in a private school located in the LEA’s geographic area– Unlike Title I, residence in not a factor
• Must meet specific eligibility/participation criteria of the Title III program
Common Areas of Non-compliance
Equitable Services
– Timely and Meaningful Consultation– LEA maintains control and oversight– Identification process for private school
children– Imposing administratively burdensome
requirements not authorized by law
Fiscal
• LEA administrative costs cap– 2% limit on indirect cost
• Purchases “necessary and reasonable”• Supplant violations
Title III Grants to LEAs
FY 2016
Consortium Model
• Still have individual grant limit of $10,000• Cannot continue to use RESAs as pass-
through – Federal Monitoring Finding
• Must us LEA as consortium lead
Marshall 4
Jefferson399
Ohio 13
Hancock 5
Brooke 3
Wetzel16
Monongalia412
Preston3
Tyler 2
Pleasants 1
Wood 78
Marion 17 Berkeley465
Hampshire4
Hardy 105
Grant2
Tucker 0
Taylor2Harrison
131
Pendleton3
Randolph12
Pocahontas0
Greenbrier47
Barbour0
Webster0
Nicholas8
Fayette22
Raleigh68
Monroe 0
Mercer34
McDowell0
Wyoming0
Boone3
Kanawha419
Roane0
Gilmer4
Lewis10
Ritchie 0
Wirt 1
Jackson22Mason
21
Cabell 206
Putnam57
Wayne32
Lincoln2
Logan 6
Braxton 1
Clay 4
Consortium LeadsHardy: 141
Harrison: 168
Monongalia: 434
Wood: 125
Putnam: 100
Kanawha: 426
Cabell: 254
Raleigh: 102
Greenbrier: 78
Jefferson: 399
Berkeley: 465
Title III Consortium
Fiscal Responsibilities
CONSORTIUM LEADS
– Claim up to 2% Administrative Costs– Review and pay invoices for services provided by
consortium members– Continue to serve as the lead for the duration of
the 27 month grant period– Maintain separate financial records related to the
grant– Keep all financial records for at least three years
following receipt of the grant– Make financial records available to WVDE and
consortium members upon request
• Disburse funds in accordance with the purpose and regulation of Title III
• Maintain control of funds for the consortium
• Maintain control of consortium inventory
CONSORTIUM MEMBERS
• Submit invoices and supporting documentation for services conducted as part of the consortium agreement
• Prior to incurring any costs members will inform the lead county
Would this be an allowable use to Title III funds
Trivia
??????
Question
• A district proposes to use Title III funds to provide monthly dinners for its EL parent advisory council. The amount proposed for these dinners is approximately 1/12 of the district’s Title III allocation. Would this be an allowable use of Title III funds?
Answer
• NO– Generally, food and entertainment are not
allowable, unless there is specific reason food must be provided (such as all-day meeting).
– This cost may not be reasonable.
Question
• A district proposes to use Title III funds to support the salary of an administrator who will, as part of his/her duties, administer district Title III-funded activities. Would this be an allowable use of Title III funds?
Answer
• Yes– This may be allowable, assuming Title III
funds are only utilized to support his/her duties that are Title III-related, however, this portion of his/her salary should be assigned to the 2% administrative cost under Title III.
Question
• A school district has faced budget cuts for FY2015 that included the loss of three ESL teachers. Can the district use Title III funds to pay all or any part of the salary to keep one of the ESL teachers.
Answer
• Maybe– The LEA would need to determine whether
this teacher provides services that are required by Lau, and also apply the second test of supplements, not supplant – prior year – to determine whether this would be an allowable cost.
Prior Year Test - SNS
• Budget cuts were made in a number of areas, not just services for LEP students; and,
• There was in fact a reduced amount of State or local funds to pay for this activity/position; and
• The LEA made the decision to eliminate the position/activity without taking into consideration Federal funds.
Question
• Consulting fees for a consultant to deliver a professional development session. Would this be an allowable use of Title III funds?
Answer
• Yes– If training is above and beyond any training
required under State law, and not required to meet Lau provisions.
Question
• Costs for tuition and fees for teachers to obtain ESL certification. Would this be an allowable use of Title III funds?
Answer
• Yes– LEAs would not normally pay these fees for
all teachers.
Question
• Costs for training and materials for English language proficiency (ELP) assessment data analysis. Would this be an allowable use of Title III funds?
Answer
• Yes– If data analysis were conducted for purposes
such as improvement of instruction, development of a Title III improvement plan, or related to Title III AMAOs
– Any costs related to training provided to administer the State ELP assessment would not be allowable
Question
• Costs related to ESL curriculum development. Would this be an allowable use of Title III funds?
Answer
• Yes– Must be able to demonstrate that the
curriculum development is above and beyond what is required by the school, LEA, and state.
Question
• Purchase of a laptop for ESL students to use a language development software program on. Would this be an allowable use of Title III funds?
Answer
• Yes– If the laptop is something the district would
not purchase unless it had received a Title III grant, i.e., is not something they are otherwise required to purchase or have been purchasing.
– The LEA would need to have checks in place to ensure that the laptop is being utilized for the Title III program.
Question
• Textbooks that serve as a child’s primary math or language arts textbook. Would this be an allowable use of Title III funds?
Answer
• NO– The LEA is required to provide this as part of
the core educational program for all students.– Supplementary textbooks or reference guides
that supplement the LEA-provided textbook would be allowable .
Question
• Stipends to teachers to assess newly enrolled students for English language proficiency. Would this be an allowable use of Title III funds?
Answer
• NO– The LEA is obligated to assess the English
language proficiency of students identified under the Home Language Survey for placement and identification purposes.
Question
• ESL classroom supplies such as laptops, projectors, and smart boards. Would this be an allowable use of Title III funds?
Answer
• NO– These items would not be considered
supplemental since the same items for the rest of the classrooms would be paid for with other State, local and Federal funds.
POLICY 2417 UPDATES
Exit Criteria 2.2.d. student scores at mastery level three or four above on the West Virginia General Summative Assessment Educational Standards Test (WESTEST), Reading English Language Arts /Literacy Assessment (grades 3-8 and10 - 11) or Reading Language Arts end of course exams (grades 9 and 11); or
2.2.e. student scores at mastery level target or above on the Alternate Assessment; or
2.2.f. student in grades Pre-K – 2 may be exited prior to grade through a process approved by the state.
Regulations
3.1. Each county shall identify LEP students within 30 days of enrollment based on criteria established by the WVDE and available through the Office of Federal Programs.
OCR- and DOJ –approved home language survey questions
1) What is the primary language used in the home, regardless of the language spoken by the student?
2) What is the language most often spoken by the student?
3) What is the language that the student first acquired?