Title III State Survey

Appendix A: State Survey

National Evaluation of Title III Implementation

State Administrator Survey

2022-23 School Year

Notice of Confidentiality

Information collected for this study comes under the confidentiality and data protection requirements of the Institute of Education Sciences (The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183). Responses to this data collection will be used by the U.S. Department of Education, its contractors, and collaborating researchers only for statistical purposes. Reports will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with specific district or individual. All of the information you provide may be used only for statistical purposes and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose except as required by law (20 U.S.C. §9573 and 6 U.S.C. §151). States receiving funds under Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) are expected to cooperate with Department evaluations (Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 C.F.R. § 76.591)).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB number. The valid OMB control number of this information collection is XXXX-XXXX. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 45 minutes per survey, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimates(s) or suggestion for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, 20202-4651. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, 550 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024.

Dear State Administrator,

Thank you for having agreed to participate in the National Evaluation of Title III Implementation.

• Purpose of Study: To better understand the implementation of Title III under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and how states support districts and schools in serving English learners.

• Sponsor: The study is being conducted by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) under a contract from the U.S. Department of Education.

• Response Burden: This survey should require approximately 45 minutes of your time.

• Benefits: Your participation will help inform policy makers, educators and researchers at the local, state, and national level of the implementation Title III at the state level.

• More Information: For questions or more information about this study, you may contact the AIR study team at XXXX@air.org or call the study toll-free-number at, 1-800-XXX-XXXX.

Thank you for your cooperation in this very important effort!

1. Initial Identification and Exit of ELs

A.1. During the 2022-23 school year, which of the following criteria does your state require, allow but not require, or not allow districts to use for the initial identification of students as ELs?

	Require	Allow but not require	Do not allow
State-developed home language survey			
District-developed home language survey			
Overall composite score on the state English language proficiency (ELP) assessment			
Specific subscore(s) on the state ELP assessment			
Score(s) on one or more other ELP assessments (not the state ELP assessment)			
Score on the state English language arts assessment			
Score(s) on other English reading/literacy tests (including writing samples)			
Score on other state content area assessment(s) (e.g., math, science, social studies)			
Class grades			
State-developed language observation protocol or teacher referral rubric			
District-developed language observation protocol or teacher referral rubric			
Recommendation from EL committee (e.g., language proficiency and assessment committee)			
Parental input/choice			
Years in the U.S.			
Grade level			
Other (please specify):			

A1a. During the 2022-23 school year, did your state require districts to administer the ELP assessment to ALL students whose primary or home language is other than English when initially identifying ELs, or are there exceptions for certain categories of students?

• We require districts to administer the ELP assessment to ALL possible ELs

• We allow districts to make exceptions for some students

A1a1. (If exceptions allowed) Please describe your state’s procedures for determining which students are administered the ELP assessment.

A.2. During the 2022-23 school year, which of the following criteria does your state require, allow but not require, or not allow districts to use for exiting EL students?

	Require	Allow but not require	Do not allow
Overall composite score on the state ELP assessment			
Specific subscore(s) on the state ELP assessment			
Score(s) on one or more other ELP assessments (not the state ELP assessment).			
Score on the state English language arts assessment			
Score(s) on other English reading/literacy tests (including writing samples)			
Score on other state content area assessment(s) (e.g., math, science, social studies)			
Class grades			
State-developed language observation protocol or teacher evaluation rubric			
District-developed language observation protocol or teacher evaluation rubric			
Recommendation from EL committee (e.g., language proficiency assessment committee)			
Parental input/choice			
Years in the U.S.			
Years in EL status			
Grade level			
Other (please specify):			

A.2a During the 2022-23 school year, did your state allow local discretion or alternate procedures for identifying or exiting EL students in special circumstances?

• Yes

• No  Skip to A.3

A.2a1 (If yes) Please describe cases in which alternate procedures are permissible, under state guidelines.

A.2a1. Does your state require written requests from districts to deviate from statewide identification or exit procedures?

• Yes  If so how many districts have submitted such requests in the 2022-23 school year? How many were approved?
  ________ (write in number of districts that submitted requests)
  ________ (write in number of requests approved by the state)

• No

A.3. During the 2022-23 school year, including summer 2022, what supports did the state provide to districts on the following topics related to the identification of students as English Learners or exiting students from EL status. (For each row, check all that apply.)
Rows h, i, j, k, r, s, t, and u will be added only if the respondent indicates these are required or allowed in A.1 and A.2

	No supports provided	Provided written guidance	Provided remote or video-based technical assistance	Provided in-person technical assistance or training
Who must be assessed for initial EL identification				
When the home language survey must be administered				
When ELP assessments must be administered for initial EL identification				
Training requirements for personnel involved in administering and/or scoring assessments used for EL identification				
How to make identification decisions for students with disabilities				
How to review the accuracy of positive EL identification decisions				
How to review the accuracy of negative EL identification decisions for language minority students1				
How to incorporate class grades into identification decisions				
How to implement a language observation protocol or teacher evaluation rubric				
How to incorporate recommendations from an EL committee in identification decisions				
How to respond to and reflect parental input in EL identification decisions				
Who must be assessed for exiting students from EL status				
When ELP assessments must be administered for exiting students from EL status				
Training requirements for personnel involved in administering and/or scoring assessments used for exiting students from EL status				
How to make decisions about exiting EL status for students with disabilities				
How to review the accuracy of positive exit decisions				
How to review the accuracy of negative exit decisions				
How to incorporate class grades into exit decisions				
How to implement a language observation protocol or teacher evaluation rubric				
How to incorporate recommendations from an EL committee in exit decisions				
How to respond to and reflect parental input in EL exit				

A.4. During the current and prior school years (2021-22 and 2022-23), did your state use the following strategies to review district implementation of identification and exit procedures in all districts, some districts, or no districts?

	All districts	Some districts	No districts
The state collects home language surveys that were completed as part of the enrollment process			
The state collects documentation of district exit procedures for individual EL students			
The state collects documentation from districts about the training provided to staff involved in EL identification			
The state collects information from districts about the training of staff responsible for administering and/or scoring mandated assessments of ELs (such as training certification)			
The state reviews LEA identification decisions individually			
The state reviews LEA exit decisions individually			
Other (please specify): _____________________________________________________			

A.4a. Does your state review individually review any identification or exit decisions made at the district level? If so, please estimate the number of such decisions that you reviewed in
2021-22 and 2022-23.

	Yes	No	Approximate number of decisions reviewed
Review of individual identification decisions?		
Review of individual exit decisions?		

2. Accountability, Monitoring, and Supports

B.1. During the current school year (2022-23) how many of your state’s schools are designated as Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) and/or Additional Targeted Support and Improvement (ATSI) specifically due to low EL performance? (Please respond based on your own understanding of TSI or ATSI schools; you do not need to look up numbers or consult with colleagues.)

• I know the number of TSI and/or ATSI schools identified specifically due to low EL performance in our state: ________ [enter number. If your state does not have any TSI or ATSI schools identified for the EL subgroup, enter “0.”]

• I know we have some TSI and/or ATSI schools identified specifically due to low EL performance, but I am not sure of the number.

• I am not sure if we have any TSI and/or ATSI schools identified specifically due to low EL performance in our state. [Respondents who select this last option will be asked a modified version of B.5 that does not include the column about districts with TSI/ATSI schools]

B.2. During this school year (2022–23) and including last summer (2022), did your state provide support (guidance, technical assistance, or professional development (PD)) to districts or schools on any of the following topics to help them better serve ELs?

	Did your state provide support on this topic?
	No	Yes
Understanding which EL-related performance measures factor into the state’s school accountability designations (e.g., CSI, TSI, ATSI status) and/or how those measures are calculated		
Title III subgrant management		
Conducting an EL-focused needs assessment		
Developing an improvement plan focused on EL issues		
Implementing evidence-based approaches to English language development (ELD)		
Implementing evidence-based approaches to content area instruction for ELs		
Aligning curriculum and instruction with state English language proficiency (ELP) standards		
Assessing ELs (including testing accommodations)		
Using data on ELs to guide instruction		
Implementing strategies to involve parents or families of ELs		
Conducting EL program evaluation		
Administering EL program (assigning students to services, scheduling, etc.)		
Providing effective training for teachers of ELs		
Providing social-emotional learning supports for ELs		

B.3. Thinking about the topics on which your state provided support this school year (2022–23), which topics did your state prioritize by providing the greatest amount of support (guidance, technical assistance, or PD) to districts and schools?
NOTE: Item will only include sub-items with a “Yes” response in B.2. Respondents who select “yes” for less than 4 sub-items in the previous question will skip out of this question]

	Select Up To 3 Responses
Understanding which EL-related performance measures factor into the state’s school accountability designations (e.g., CSI, TSI, ATSI status) and/or how those measures are calculated	
Title III subgrant management	
Conducting an EL-focused needs assessment	
Developing an improvement plan focused on EL issues	
Implementing evidence-based approaches to English language development (ELD)	
Implementing evidence-based approaches to content area instruction for ELs	
Aligning curriculum and instruction with state English language proficiency (ELP) standards	
Assessing ELs (including testing accommodations)	
Using data on ELs to guide instruction	
Implementing strategies to involve parents of ELs	
Conducting EL program evaluation	
Administering EL program (assigning students to services, scheduling, etc.)	
Providing effective training for teachers of ELs	
Providing social-emotional learning supports for ELs	

NOTE: For states that indicate they have no TSI-EL schools in B.1, items B.4 and B.5 will remove reference to
TSI-EL schools and only reference CSI schools.

B.4. During this school year (2022–23) and including last summer (2022), did your state provide districts with CSI schools and/or districts with TSI/ATSI schools identified for low EL performance with more EL-related support (guidance, technical assistance, or PD) than other districts?

• Yes

• No [If no, skip to B.6.]

B.5. During this school year (2022–23) and including last summer (2022), for which topics did your state provide districts with CSI schools and/or districts with TSI/ATSI schools identified for low EL performance with more EL-related support (technical assistance, PD, or guidance documents) compared to other districts? Check at least one box per row.
NOTE: Item will only include sub-items with a “Yes” response in B.2; states with no TSI/ATSI schools (based on B.1) will not be shown that column and will see a modified heading in the last column.

	State provided more support (TA, PD, or guidance) to:		No additional support on this topic for either type of district beyond what is available to other districts in the state
	Districts with CSI schools	Districts with TSI or ATSI schools identified for low EL performance
Understanding which EL-related performance measures factor into the state’s school accountability designations (e.g., CSI, TSI, ATSI status) and/or how those measures are calculated			
Title III subgrant management			
Conducting an EL-focused needs assessment			
Developing an improvement plan focused on EL issues			
Implementing evidence-based approaches to English language development (ELD)			
Implementing evidence-based approaches to content area instruction for ELs			
Aligning curriculum and instruction with state English language proficiency (ELP) standards			
Assessing ELs (including testing accommodations)			
Using data on ELs to guide instruction			
Implementing strategies to involve parents of ELs			
Conducting EL program evaluation			
Administering EL program (assigning students to services, scheduling, etc.)			
Providing effective training for teachers of ELs			
Providing social-emotional learning supports for ELs			

B.6. In the 2022-23 school year, did your state conduct the following activities to monitor the effectiveness of of language instruction educational programs (LIEPs) with all Title III districts, some Title III districts, or no Title III districts? (Check one response per row.)

	All Title III districts	Some Title III districts	No Title III districts
Desk audits			
Video or phone interviews with district staff			
Video or phone visits with other stakeholders (teachers, parents)			
Onsite review			
Review of district-provided data			
Review of state assessment data			
Other (please specify): ___________________________________			

B.7. Does your state review any of the following types of information to monitor progress for the EL programs and services in your districts?

	No, the state does not review this information	Yes, the state reviews this information
Number or percentage of students attaining English proficiency		
Number or percentage of students making progress in English proficiency		
Number or percentage of students regressing one or more levels in English proficiency		
Number or percentage of ELs who have not attained English proficiency within an expected time period (e.g., within 5 years of enrollment)		
Percentage of ELs meeting state proficiency standards in English language arts and math		
Qualifications of staff		
Other (please specify): _____________________________________________		

B.8. For each type of information your state reviews, has your state established a particular target or threshold that districts are expected to meet? If so, please specify.
NOTE: Item will only include sub-items for which respondent indicated a target was set in B.7.]

	No specific target for this	Yes, the state has set a target	Target or Threshold Write In Response
Number or percentage of students attaining English proficiency		
Number or percentage of students making progress in English proficiency		
Number or percentage of students regressing one or more levels in English proficiency		
Number or percentage of ELs who have not attained English proficiency within an expected time period (e.g, within 5 years of enrollment)		
Percentage of ELs meeting state proficiency standards in English language arts and math		
Qualifications of staff		
Other (please specify): __________________________________________		

B.9. Does your state take any of the following actions if districts do not meet targets or otherwise are deemed to need more support to implement their EL program? During the 2022-23 school year (including summer 2022) in approximately what percentage of districts did you take these actions?
NOTE: The column referencing the percentage of districts will only appear for districts that select “yes” for a given row.

	Yes	No	% of districts in which this is implemented
Provide individualized TA support		
Provide large group trainings or webinars		
Provide written guidance or tools		
Require the district to conduct a more in-depth assessment of EL-related needs		
Require the districts to develop an action plan with evidence-based strategies for ELs		
Require the district to replace the LIEP		
Conduct more frequent progress monitoring		
Other (please specify): _____________________________________________________		

B.10. During this school year (2022–23, including summer 2022), did your state use the following strategies to promote the use of evidence-based models, interventions, or strategies to improve EL outcomes in all districts; some districts, or no districts?
NOTE: For items d and e only, the next row will display requesting the state provide the link to the publicly available information or send the information via email.

,	State used this strategy with:
	All Districts	Some Districts	No Districts
The state refers district and school leaders to publications and products produced by the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse, the Regional Educational Laboratories, or the Regional Comprehensive Centers to obtain information on evidence-based models, interventions, or strategies to improve EL outcomes			
The state links district and school leaders with staff from the U.S. Department of Education’s Regional Educational Laboratories or the Regional Comprehensive Centers to obtain information on evidence-based models, interventions, or strategies to improve EL outcomes			
The state refers district and school leaders to publications and products produced by Evidence for ESSA or other evidence clearinghouses to obtain information on evidence-based models, interventions, or strategies to improve EL outcomes			
The state provides district and school leaders with a list of evidence-based models, interventions, or strategies to improve EL outcomes			
Please provide a link to the list if publicly available (you can also send it to [email address]): ___________
The state provides a list of vetted partners that district and school leaders can engage to implement approved evidence-based strategies for ELs			
Please provide a link to the list if publicly available (you can also send it to [email address]): ___________
The state provides or funds staff (state education agency staff or external consultants) who support evidence-based school improvement but do not represent particular models or strategies			
The state engages school and district leaders in communities of practice to support implementing approved evidence-based strategies for ELs			
The state disseminates summaries of best practices, success stories, implementation guides, and research findings from districts or schools using evidence-based strategies for ELs			
i. Something else: __________________________________________			

B.11. For the strategies below that your state used with some districts, with which sets of districts did your state use these strategies during the 2022-23 school year, including summer 2022? (Check all that apply.)
NOTE: Item will only display rows for which the respondent selected “some districts” in B.10]

,	State used this strategy with:
	Districts with CSI, TSI, or ATSI schools	Districts with LIEPs that are not effective	Title III districts	Other subset of districts
The state refers district and school leaders to publications and products produced by the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse, the Regional Educational Laboratories, or the Regional Comprehensive Centers to obtain information on evidence-based models, interventions, or strategies to improve EL outcomes				
The state links district and school leaders with staff from the U.S. Department of Education’s Regional Educational Laboratories or the Regional Comprehensive Centers to obtain information on evidence-based models, interventions, or strategies to improve EL outcomes				
The state refers district and school leaders to publications and products produced by Evidence for ESSA or other evidence clearinghouses to obtain information on evidence-based models, interventions, or strategies to improve EL outcomes				
The state provides district and school leaders with a list of evidence-based models, interventions, or strategies to improve EL outcomes				
The state provides a list of vetted partners that district and school leaders can engage to implement approved evidence-based strategies for ELs				
The state provides or funds staff (state education agency staff or external consultants) who support evidence-based school improvement but do not represent particular models or strategies				
The state engages school and district leaders in communities of practice to support implementing approved evidence-based strategies for ELs				
The state disseminates summaries of best practices, success stories, implementation guides, and research findings from districts or schools using evidence-based strategies for ELs				
Something else: __________________________________________				

B.12. You indicated that your state provides districts a list of evidence-based models, interventions, or strategies to improve EL outcomes. To what extent did your state consider the following criteria in choosing what to include on that list? NOTE: Item will only be asked if “Yes” is selected for B.10(d)

	Not considered	Considered with some weight	A major consideration
Has research from studies using a well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental design (meets ESSA Tier 1 or 2 evidence)			
Has research showing promising evidence from a well-implemented, correlational study that statistically controls for selection bias (meets ESSA Tier 3 evidence)			
Has high-quality research showing that the intervention is likely to improve student outcomes, and an effort to study the effects of the intervention is underway (meets ESSA Tier 4 evidence)			
Evidence of effectiveness that meets other evidence criteria			
Alignment with the state’s academic content standards			
Alignment with the state’s ELP standards			
Availability of aligned assessments to monitor student progress and/or attainment			
Interventions that align with equity goals (restorative justice practices, interventions with culturally-responsive curricula)			
Cost-effectiveness of the model, intervention, or strategy			
Ease of implementation of the model, intervention, or strategy			
Recommendations from staff in schools that have used the strategy or popularity of the strategy in the state			

B.13. What were the three most important criteria for choosing what to include on the list of models, interventions, and strategies to improve EL outcomes?
NOTE: Only sub-items selected as “a major consideration” in the B.12 will appear in this item. Respondents who select “a major consideration” for fewer than 4 sub-items in the previous question will skip out of this question]

	Select up to 3 responses
Has research from studies using a well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental design (meets ESSA Tier 1 or 2 evidence)	
Has research showing promising evidence from a well-implemented, correlational study that statistically controls for selection bias (meets ESSA Tier 3 evidence)	
Has high-quality research showing that the intervention is likely to improve student outcomes, and an effort to study the effects of the intervention is underway (meets ESSA Tier 4 evidence)	
Evidence of effectiveness that meets other evidence criteria	
Alignment with the state’s academic content standards	
Alignment with the state’s ELP standards	
Availability of aligned assessments to monitor student progress and/or attainment	
Interventions that align with equity goals (restorative justice practices, interventions with culturally-responsive curricula)	
Cost-effectiveness of the model, intervention, or strategy	
Ease of implementation of the model, intervention, or strategy	
Recommendations from staff in schools that have used the strategy or popularity of the strategy in the state	

B.14. To what extent did your state consider any of these sources of information to determine that the models, interventions, and strategies on your state’s list have evidence of effectiveness?
NOTE: Item will only be asked if “Yes” is selected for B.10(d)]

	Not considered	Considered with some weight	A major consideration
Research published by independent organizations or universities			
Information provided by the program’s developer or vendor			
Recommendations from other states, or from schools and districts within the state			
The What Works Clearinghouse			
Evidence for ESSA, or other organization that rates evidence			
Information from a U.S. Department of Education Comprehensive Center			
Information from a U.S. Department of Education Regional Educational Laboratory			
Another source ________________________			

NOTE: B.14a will only be asked of states that select “considered with some weight” or “a major consideration” for more than 4 sources

B.14a. What were the most important sources of information? Please select the top 3.

	Select top 3
Research published by independent organizations or universities	
Information provided by the program’s developer or vendor	
Recommendations from other states, or from schools and districts within the state	
The What Works Clearinghouse	
Evidence for ESSA, or other organization that rates evidence	
Information from a U.S. Department of Education Comprehensive Center	
Information from a U.S. Department of Education Regional Educational Laboratory	
Another source: _____________________________________________________________________________	

B.15. How often are state staff with expertise in Title III or EL issues in general involved in the following activities? Items that ask about TSI or ATSI schools are referring to TSI or ATSI schools identified specifically for low EL performance.

	Never or rarely	Sometimes	Often	Always or nearly always
Reviewing school improvement plans for CSI schools				
Reviewing school improvement plans for TSI or ATSI schools that were identified for low EL performance [Only respondents who report having TSI or ATSI schools will be asked this sub-item]				
Developing or providing EL-related technical assistance to CSI, TSI, or ATSI schools [Respondents who did not report having TSI or ATSI schools identified for low EL performance will only see reference to CSI schools]				
Monitoring the progress of CSI, TSI, or ATSI schools [Respondents who did not report having TSI or ATSI schools identified for low EL performance will only see reference to CSI schools]				
Providing guidance on how CSI, TSI, or ATSI schools can leverage Title I funds to support ELs. [Respondents who did not report having TSI or ATSI schools identified for low EL performance will only see reference to CSI schools]				

B.16. Since 2016, have state staff with expertise in Title III or EL issues in general been involved in any of the following activities?

	Yes	No	Not sure
Developing or selecting statewide measures of English language proficiency (ELP) progress			
Setting the state’s long-term goals or measures of interim progress for ELs’ academic achievement, graduation rate, and/or ELP progress			
Designing the state’s report cards to provide information on state, district, and/or school performance in a manner that is accessible to EL parents and community members			
Determining whether to include the performance of former ELs when calculating the performance of the EL subgroup for accountability purposes			

B.17. To what extent is each of the following a challenge to meeting the needs of ELs in your state in the 2022-23 school year? (Select one in each row.)

	Not a challenge	A minor challenge	A moderate challenge	A major challenge
Lack of coordination between Title III and Title I				
Lack of coordination between Title III and other federal programs (aside from Title I)				
Lack of political support for EL services				
Shortage of qualified teachers for specialist EL teacher positions (ESL, ELD, bilingual education,etc)				
Lack of expertise among mainstream teachers to address the needs of ELs				
Lack of evidence-based curricula and programs for ELs				
Insufficient funds to address the needs of ELs				

3. Teacher Supports and Certification Requirements

C.1. Does your state offer any of the following credentials for educators who serve ELs?

	Yes	No
ESL/Bilingual Education License/Certification (as primary teaching licensure)		
ESL/Bilingual Education Endorsement/Credential (supplemental to the primary licensure)		
Other (please describe): ___________________________________________________________________________		

C.2. What, if any, EL-related credentials or training does your state require for educators who serve ELs? Select all that apply. If your district does not require EL-related credentials or training for a particular type of educator, please select None.
NOTE: Programming will remove credentials not selected in C.1.

	ESL/Bilingual Education License/ Certification (as primary teaching licensure)	ESL/Bilingual Education Endorsement/ Credential (supplemental to the primary licensure)	EL-Related Professional Development Hours	Supplemental University-Based Coursework	None
ESL teachers					
Bilingual education/dual-language teachers with an ELD focus					
Content-area teachers of ELs (e.g., in sheltered instruction models or other EL-only classroom models)					
General education/content area teachers who have ELs in mainstream classes					
Special education teachers who serve ELs					
Early childhood teachers who serve ELs/DLLs					
School or district administrators					
Instructional coaches, paraprofessionals, or instructional aides					
Other type of educator (specify): _____________________					

C.3. You indicated that your state requires EL-related professional development hours for the following type(s) of educators who serve ELs. Please specify the number of hours that are required per year. If the requirement spans multiple years, please divide the number of hours by the number of years in which teachers are expected to fulfill the requirement. For example, if an educator is required to complete 10 hours every two years, please enter 5.
NOTE: [Question will only be asked if respondent indicates in C.2 that PD hours are required]

	Required Number of EL-Related Professional Development Hours Per Year
ESL teachers
Bilingual education/dual-language teachers with an ELD focus
Content-area teachers of ELs (e.g., in sheltered instruction models or other EL-only classroom models)
General education/content area teachers who have ELs in mainstream classes
Special education teachers who serve ELs
Early childhood teachers who serve ELs/DLLs
School or district administrators
Instructional coaches, paraprofessionals, or instructional aides
Other type of educator (specify): _________________________________________________________

C.4. Does your state require coursework or training on serving ELs to be included in preparation programs and/or alternative certification programs for any of the following types of educators? For each group of educators, select all that apply.

	Preparation Programs	Alternative Certification Programs	Neither
Elementary-level general education teachers			
Secondary-level content area teachers			
Special education teachers			
Early childhood teachers			
School administrators			

C.5. What, if any, actions has your state taken to address issues of recruiting, hiring, or retaining effective teachers of ELs during this school year (2022–23) and including last summer (2022)?

	Yes	No
Established financial incentives to recruit effective teachers of ELs		
Established financial incentives or scholarships to support teachers in obtaining EL-related certification		
Provided written guidance, referrals to other sources of information, or targeted communication to districts on ways to recruit effective teachers of ELs		
Assisted districts to hire teachers earlier than the traditional spring/summer hiring season		
Assisted districts to develop career ladders or teacher leadership roles to attract and retain effective teachers of ELs		
Provided written guidance, referrals to other sources of information, or targeted communication to districts to improve teaching and learning environments in schools		
Modified certification or licensure requirements for teachers of ELs		
Other (please specify): _________________________________________________________________		

C.6. Within the past 12 months, has your state collected any of the following types of information on the qualifications or effectiveness of teachers who serve ELs?

	Yes	No
Teacher certification status (e.g., teachers who are fully certified for their position, teachers with emergency credentials, etc.)		
Teacher experience (e.g., teachers with less than 3 years of experience, teachers in their first year of teaching)		
Value added measures (VAMs) or student growth percentiles (SGPs) (i.e., measures that calculate the growth in achievement among a teacher’s students)		
Other (please specify): ________________________________________________________________________________		

C.7. Within the past 12 months, has your state used any of the following types of information to examine the distribution of teacher qualifications or effectiveness for ELs versus other students?
NOTE: Only subitems with a “yes” response in C.6 will appear; if there were no items with a “yes” response, this question will be skipped

	Yes	No
Teacher certification status (e.g., teachers who are fully certified for their position, teachers with emergency credentials, etc.)		
Teacher experience (e.g., teachers with less than 3 years of experience, teachers in their first year of teaching)		
Value added measures (VAMs) or student growth percentiles (SGPs) (i.e., measures that calculate the growth in achievement among a teacher’s students)		
Other (please describe): ___________________________________________________________________		

C.8. For any of the teacher quality or effectiveness measures that your state examined, did EL students tend to have teachers who were more, equally, or less qualified/effective than the teachers that other students had?
NOTE: if there were no items with a “yes” response in the previous question, this question will be skipped

	ELs tended to have less qualified/effective teachers	ELs tended to have equally qualified/effective teachers	ELs tended to have more qualified/effective teachers
Teacher certification status (e.g., teachers who are fully certified for their position, teachers with emergency credentials, etc.)			
Teacher experience (e.g., teachers with less than 3 years of experience, teachers in their first year of teaching)			
Value added measures (VAMs) or student growth percentiles (SGPs) (i.e., measures that calculate the growth in achievement among a teacher’s students)			
Other (please describe): _____________________________________________			

C.9. You indicated that ELs in your state tended to have teachers who were less qualified or effective than the teachers other students had. What, if any, actions has your state taken to address these differences in teacher qualifications/effectiveness?
NOTE: If there were no items with a “yes” response in C.7, this question will be skipped

	Yes	No
Developed a state-level plan for improving ELs’ access to qualified/effective teachers		
Required districts and/or schools to develop a plan for improving ELs’ access to qualified/effective teachers		
Provided written guidance to districts or schools on improving ELs’ access to qualified/effective teachers		
Provided technical assistance to district or school staff on improving ELs’ access to qualified/effective teachers		
Offered incentives to qualified/effective teachers to teach in particular districts or schools		
Offered incentives or support for teachers of ELs to improve their qualifications/effectiveness		
Other (please describe): ___________________________________________________________________		

C.10. During the 2022-23 school year and including summer 2022, has your state provided professional development activities focused on supporting ELs for any of the following types of educators?
NOTE: Respondents who respond “no” to each of the sub-items will skip to question C.12]

	Yes	No
ESL teachers		
Bilingual education/dual-language teachers with an ELD focus		
Content-area teachers of ELs (e.g., in sheltered instruction models or other EL-only classroom models)		
General education/content area teachers who have ELs in mainstream classes		
Special education teachers who serve ELs		
Early childhood teachers who serve ELs/DLLs		
School or district administrators		
Instructional coaches, paraprofessionals, or instructional aides		
Other types of educators (please specify): _______________________________________________________		

C.11. During this school year (2022–23), including last summer (2022), did your state provide general education teachers or EL specialist teachers (e.g., ESL and dual language/bilingual education teachers) with professional development (PD) on any of the following topics to help ELs succeed?

	Provided PD on this topic to General Education or Content Area Teachers		Provided PD on this topic to EL Specialist Teachers
	Yes	No	Yes	No
Teaching a set of academic vocabulary words intensively across several days using a variety of instructional activities				
Integrating oral and written English language instruction into content area teaching				
Providing regular, structured opportunities for English learners (ELs) to develop oral and written language skills				
Providing small group instructional intervention to students struggling in areas of literacy and English language development				
Co-teaching or collaboration between an EL teacher and a general education teacher				
Supporting ELs’ social, emotional, and mental health needs				
Engaging EL families				

C.12. Did your state engage in efforts to evaluate its EL-related professional development activities during the 2022-23 school year, including summer 2022?

• Yes (Respondent continues to next question)

• No (Respondent skips next question)

C.13. What type(s) of information did your state use to evaluate its EL-related professional development (PD) activities?

	Yes	No
PD participation rates		
PD completion rates		
Participant perceptions of the PD (e.g., based on a survey)		
Assessments of teacher knowledge		
Classroom observation data		
Teacher effectiveness data (e.g., value-added scores)		
EL English proficiency outcomes		
EL academic achievement		
Other (please specify):		

4. State Use of Funds and FTEs

D.1. During the 2022-23 school year, which of the following activities are funded through your state Title III grant? In column A, please check yes or no to indicate if state-level Title III funds are used for this activity, and in column B please indicate the approximate percentage of state-level Title III funds spent on this activity.

	Column A		Column B
	Yes	No	Percentage of Title III state funds spent on this
Aligning English language proficiency (ELP) standards to the ELP assessment or state content standards		
Identifying interventions to address EL’s academic achievement and progress in attaining ELP		
Developing and implementing standardized statewide entrance and exit procedures for ELs		
Providing professional development to improve teaching skills to meet the needs of ELs		
Providing professional development to assist teachers of ELs to meet state and local certification and licensing requirements for serving ELs		
Monitoring the effectiveness of districts’ LIEPs and/or assisting districts with LIEPs that are not effective		
Supporting administrative costs associated with implementing the Title III state grant		
Providing assistance to districts on how to engage EL parents, families, or communities		
Providing financial awards to districts that have significantly improved the achievement and progress of ELs.		
Other activities or resources not listed above: ________		
Note: Programming will check that percentages sum to 100%			100%

D.2. How many full time equivalent (FTE) positions at the state-level are dedicated to Title III and EL issues?

_______ FTEs

D.3. How many state-level personnel have Title III and EL issues as their primary responsibility?

_______ individuals

5. Family and Community Involvement

E.1. To what extent does your state use any of the following methods to gather family and community input for state plans (including state ESSA plan or other EL state guidance documents (e.g., state EL framework, strategic plan, blueprint)?

	Never	Occasionally	Often
Convene a statewide EL parent/family advisory committee to provide input			
Offer open public meetings with interpretation to solicit input from families of ELs			
Hold focus group or stakeholder meetings to gather EL parents/family input			
Administer surveys or other online opportunities (translated) for EL parents to provide input			
Other (please specify): ____________________________________________________			

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE SURVEY. WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

1 A language minority student is any student whose home language survey indicates that the student hears or speaks a language other than English in the home, regardless of the student’s proficiency in that language.