Welcome to the FAQ Hub

As a result of House Bill 2066 in the 87th Texas legislature, the term “emergent bilingual student” replaced the term of “limited English proficient (LEP) student” used in the Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 29, Subchapter B, and thus, changed the term of “English learner (EL)” used in 19 TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter BB. These terms describe a student who is in the process of acquiring English and has another language as the student's primary or home language. In the revised Texas Education Data Standards (TEDS), the terms of “emergent bilingual” and “English learner” have been bridged as EB/EL. It’s important to note that the term “English learner” is still used in federal regulations and guidance.

Emergent bilingual students make up 24% of the total student population in Texas public schools, pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. Most identified EB students in Texas have a primary language of Spanish (88.8%). The next prominent language codes in PEIMS for EB students are Vietnamese (1.4%), Arabic (1.05%), Other Languages (0.71%), Mandarin (0.6%) and Telugu (0.6%).

Resource(s)

Fact Sheet #1 - EB Demographics
Heat Map-Predominant Languages by District
PEIMS Standard Reports: EB/EL Student Reports by Home Language and Grade
PEIMS Standard Reports: EB/EL Student Reports by Category and Grade

Yes, LEAs, or vendors acting on behalf of LEAs, may load the content of the required forms into the electronic enrollment or information system, however, the content of each of the letters must remain consistent. That is, no content can be added or omitted. The TEA logo or a statement clearly indicating the contents of the form must be included, per TAC 89.1215(b) and 89.1240(a)(3)(b).

Formatting changes of any kind should not impact the accessibility or readability of the letter(s) (e.g., character limit, dropdown menus, etc.). A paper copy of the standardized letters can be used until the LEA or vendor is able to properly upload the form.

Resource(s)

Standardized HLS

As part of the amendments to Chapter 89, Subchapter BB, the state of Texas will now have ten standardized letters that will be used across the state when communicating with parents. LEAs, or vendors acting on behalf of LEAs, may use the required standardized letter(s) in paper or electronic format. The content of each letter must remain consistent. That is, no content can be added or omitted. The forms must include the TEA logo or a statement clearly indicating the contents of the form. Formatting changes of any kind may not impact the accessibility or readability of the letter(s).

Resource(s)

LPAC Standardized Letters

Upon initial enrollment in any three- or four-year old program, students must go through the state’s identification process. The student meeting the identification criteria will be identified as an EB student regardless of placement in a pre-kindergarten program or the EE setting. It is important to note that identification of students can happen at any grade level in the case of students who are entering a Texas school for the first time.

Resource(s)

Guidance on Identification and Placement of EB Students to Kindergarten

ESSA requires assurances that students are identified as EB/EL (or English Proficient, as appropriate) within 30 calendar days of enrollment [Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Public Law 115-141, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)]. TEC 29.056 requires Texas school districts to identify English learners within four calendar weeks of enrollment, which also fulfills the federal requirement. For students enrolling in the summer prior to the beginning of the school year, the identification process starts on the first day of school. If the student undergoing the identification process is eligible, the LPAC must make their recommendations for program placement and the parental approval must be sent. Instructional linguistic accommodations may also be addressed at this time. It is suggested that the signed parental approval form be received by the district within this time frame, as written parent or guardian approval is required in order for Bilingual Education Allotment (BEA) funds to be generated.

Note: A calendar week is not adjusted for school days missed, holidays, school-wide testing, or any variance in start/end day. Identification of emergent bilingual student requires testing by the LPAC as well as the convening of a meeting to review the student’s documentation and determine if the student is eligible for classification as an emergent bilingual student.

Best Practice Scenario

Masad:
Masad moved from California to Texas and his dad enrolled him at Liberty Elementary on Wednesday, August 14th. Mr. Quinteros, the school’s LPAC Coordinator, calculates that Masad must be identified and placed by September 11th. To calculate the four-week time frame according to Texas statute, Mr. Quinteros begins his four-week count on August 14th. August 21st marks the first week. August 28th marks the second week. September 4th indicates the third week. Finally, the fourth week, regardless of the Labor Day holiday, closes on September 11th. Mr. Quinteros begins preparation for the full identification process to ensure he finalizes the identification and placement of Masad in emergent bilingual services, should he qualify, by September 11th.

The single statewide assessment for the identification of EB students is Data Recognition Corporation’s (DRC) LAS Links Battery of Assessments.

Resource(s)

LAS Links Texas

Yes, LEAs must initiate the identification process for any student new to the Texas public schools to identify EB students and recommend appropriate program placement. These criteria and applicable outcomes of identification apply to foreign exchange students.

Resource(s)

LPAC Guidance: Beginning of the Year Procedures

Yes, LEAs, or vendors acting on behalf of LEAs, may load the content of the required forms into the electronic enrollment or information system, however, the content of each of the letters must remain consistent. That is, no content can be added or omitted. The TEA logo or a statement clearly indicating the contents of the form must be included, per TAC 89.1215(b) and 89.1240(a)(3)(b).

Formatting changes of any kind may not impact the accessibility or readability of the letter(s) (e.g., character limit, dropdown menus, etc.). A paper copy of the standardized letters can be used until the LEA or vendor is able to properly upload the form.

Resource(s)

Standardized HLS

If a student is classified as EB upon leaving Texas public schools, the identification remains in place when the student returns to the state. The student does not require a new HLS or retesting for identification. It is recommended that LEAs inform parents about the student’s identification and previous program placement. A new parental permission should be obtained if the student will participate in a different program going forward.

LEAs are required to ensure the information in the form is accurately presented in a language that is understood by the parent (TAC §89.1215(b)). An LEA may use a professional interpretation or translation service or employ fewer formal resources within the community.

Resource(s)

Standardized HLS
Texas Heat Map

Yes, LEAs are required to administer an HLS for each new student enrolling for the first time in a Texas public school in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. The HLS administered at the time of enrollment will serve as the original and only HLS throughout the educational experience of the student in Texas public schools (TAC §89.1215(a)).

Resource(s)

Standardized HLS
Texas Heat Map

TEA has created an optional QR code page that can be included with any paper version of the required HLS to enable all parents to have access to the digital information.

Resource(s)

Standardized HLS
Texas Heat Map

No, if a transfer student enrolling in the receiving LEA on or after August 9, 2023, was administered an outdated HLS at the transferring LEA, the receiving LEA must honor the original HLS and any LPAC documentation from the transferring LEA. The receiving LEA may attach a dated blank copy to document their acknowledgment of the new HLS being in effect during that period. An HLS will be administered for each new student enrolling in a Texas public school in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. The HLS administered upon initial enrollment will serve as the original and only HLS throughout the educational experience of the student in Texas public schools (TAC §89.1215(a)).

Resource(s)

Standardized HLS

No, an HLS does not need to be readministered, as there should be sufficient LPAC documentation from the sending district that shows the student was identified as EB. Examples of LPAC documentation include:

• previous TELPAS scores
• parental approval/denial forms
• reports on student progress
• prior PEIMS/Texas School Data System (TSDS) data

The receiving district should document that the original HLS is not included in the student’s cumulative folder, as well as document attempts to obtain the HLS, and reasons why the HLS could not be obtained (TAC §89.1215(d)).

Resource(s)

Standardized HLS

Each question on the HLS may have more than one language listed for the language(s) used at home. If a parent, for example, answers any question with English, Spanish, or Mandarin the LEA shall ask the parent or guardian to indicate in writing or through documented phone conversation which of the two listed languages other than English is used most of the time. This clarification should occur in a timely manner so the identification process can be completed within the required four-week period. The new, standardized HLS form allows for a parent or guardian to list more than one language. If a language other than English is listed, this will initiate the identification process.

Resource(s)

Data Elements Reporting Requirements, DR 30, Student Extension

LEAs are required to report the language other than English if multiple languages are indicated on question one or two of the HLS. LEAs must indicate the first language other than English if multiple languages are listed. LEAs are encouraged to contact the families to determine which language is most appropriate to enter into PEIMS.

Resource(s)

Data Elements Reporting Requirements, DR 30, Student Extension

Moving from an elementary bilingual program to a middle school ESL program is considered a change in program placement. A new parental approval will be required for the new program. It is advised that the district establish a system in which middle schools coordinate with their feeder elementary campuses to place the incoming EB students into appropriate ESL classes. It should be noted that the parent or guardian of the student is a primary stakeholder in the child’s education and should be an active participant in the decisions made about their child’s educational program. When consulting with the parent or guardian about the change of service, and completing the required standardized letter, LEAs should communicate to the student and parent or guardian the reason for the change of program as a continuation of services, how the new program services will look, and how to best support the student through the transition to a new program. Districts should not utilize the standardized form used for parental denial of a bilingual program and approval of ESL services.

Resource(s)

Change of Service to ESL

No. For EB students, the LPAC has recommended program placement based on individual student needs as well as district requirements, and the students’ parents or guardians have consented to bilingual or ESL program placement. Since the goals, language of instruction, and teacher certification requirements differ among bilingual and ESL programs, multiple programs cannot be implemented with fidelity within the same classroom.

Additional factors that would impede the joining of bilingual and ESL programs in this situation include EB students participating in ESL with a primary language other than the language of the bilingual program and EB students participating in ESL with a parental denial of the bilingual program that have accepted ESL program placement.

To include non-EB students in a bilingual program, there must be intentional design and parental approval. The bilingual program model designed for non-EB student participation is the two-way dual language immersion program model. It is the district’s discretion (and should be clearly outlined in district policy) to allow a non-EB student to participate in any other bilingual or ESL program model with parental approval.

While it is common and appropriate for EB students in an ESL program to receive program services alongside non-EB students in the same general education classroom, non-EB student participation in a bilingual program must be part of an intentional instructional design to align with bilingual program model goals, including dual language immersion instruction.

• participate in a bilingual or ESL program
• participate in required summer school programs for emergent bilingual students (TAC §89.1250)

• receive instruction in ELPS across all content areas
• have access to classroom linguistic accommodations commensurate with the English proficiency level of the student
• take the TELPAS annually until reclassification criteria as English proficient is met.

Students whose parent or guardian has denied services must also be reviewed by the LPAC to measure linguistic and academic progress and this information must be communicated to the parent or guardian. Additionally, the students must be reclassified as English proficient when reclassification criteria is met, and they must enter two years of monitoring by the LPAC after reclassification and enter an additional two years of monitoring in PEIMS for federal purposes.

Yes, eligibility for the pre- kindergarten program in this case is based on identification as EB and not on participation in a bilingual or ESL program.

Resource(s)

TEA Early Childhood Education FAQs for Prekindergarten Program
Student Attendance Accounting Handbook, Section 7

If a language other than English is listed for questions 2 or 3, LEAs are guided to report the language other than English for the student language. Additional information can be found in the Data Element Reporting Requirements, DR 30 in the Student Extension complex type.

No, a parent or guardian cannot opt their child out of taking the TELPAS, including for EB students who are not participating in a bilingual or ESL program due to a parent denial of services. State and federal requirements to measure identified emergent bilingual student’s language development in English proficiency is met by administering the TELPAS.

LPAC meetings must be held within four calendar weeks of a student’s initial enrollment in Texas public schools for identification and placement or for review of documentation from a previous Texas LEA. They must also be held prior to state assessments for determination of appropriate assessments and designated supports and at the end of the year for annual review and for the following year’s placement decisions. LPACs may also need to meet throughout the year, as needed, to discuss student progress.

Yes, digital or electronic signatures are permissible, if it complies with the rules adopted by the governing body (e.g., school board, TEA). A “digital signature” is defined as “an electronic identifier by the person using it to have the same force and effect as the use of a manual signature.” (Government Code, §2054.060(e)(1)). In the event of an agency audit of an LEA’s Bilingual or ESL program, or when transferring records to another LEA in which the student enrolls, the LEA needs to be able to provide documentation to the agency or to the receiving LEA that the documentation (i.e., HLS, parent approval, etc.) for the student was signed by the appropriate party, regardless of the method used.

The LPAC is responsible for maintaining student documentation of all actions impacting EB students. It is required that the documentation be kept in the student’s permanent record. In the educational context, the student’s permanent record is often referred to as their cumulative folder. The documentation maintained shall include (TAC §89.1220(l)(1)):

• original HLS
• identification of the student as an EB student
• designation of the student’s level of language proficiency
• recommendation of program placement
• parental approval or denial of placement into the program
• date of placement in the program
• assessment information
• additional instructional linguistic accommodations provided to address the specific language needs of the student
• date of reclassification and date of exit from the program with parental approval
• the results of monitoring for academic success, including students formerly classified as EB students.

The retention schedule for LPAC records begins the cessation of services and ends five years following reclassification, including the two years of monitoring.

Resource(s)

Texas State Library and Archives Commission: Local Schedule for School Districts, Section 3-2: Bilingual and Special Language Program Records

For students who are in years three and four of reclassification, the LPAC does not have full monitoring responsibilities as with students in years one and two of reclassification. The LPAC’s only responsibility for students in years three and four of monitoring is to report their status in PEIMS. These data are collected in PEIMS in compliance with federal accountability requirements under ESSA.

The PEIMS Emergent Bilingual Indicator Code 5 is to be assigned to former EB students who have completed their fourth year of monitoring after reclassification. This code 5 former EB/EL status will apply to the student for the remainder of their school years in Texas. The LPAC is not responsible for monitoring these students. With this code, an LEA will be able to track the progress of former EB students to evaluate the effectiveness of the district’s bilingual and/or ESL programs. The code was first implemented during the 2019-2020 school year.

Parental reports for EB student’s linguistic progress are provided within the first thirty days of the school year by the LPAC. The purpose is to ensure parents are informed about their student’s language acquisition progress and the continued placement within bilingual and ESL programs.

Best Practice Scenario

Daniel:
Daniel is 6th grade emergent bilingual student at Coral Springs Elementary Public Charter School. Ms. Cruz, Daniel’s mother, is eager to know if Daniel has met reclassification criteria, as this LPAC decision will impact what middle schools she chooses to enroll Daniel for 7th grade.

Although the state has not made the STAAR or TELPAS scores available, the LPAC uses a system for end of year planning that helps them strategically make end of year decisions, such as a reclassification, before the end of the school year and before scores become available. For example, they hold the PK and K end of year meetings first, followed by the 1st and 2nd grade LPACs, once they have the IOWA results, as well as the 3rd through 5th grade Spanish STAAR takers. Subsequently, they look at teacher’s subjective evaluations against historical TELPAS scores, and in many cases additional data, like reading and writing district assessment data, to determine whether a student is likely to reclassify.

For dually identified students, the LPAC also considers any testing accommodations and/or designated supports used and whom they were recommended by to make appropriate predictions. By using this strategic planning approach and thorough review of the surrounding data, the LPAC is able to collaborate with Daniel’s mother to share that Daniel’s bilingual education teacher believes Daniel would continue to benefit from language supports as he is struggling to access grade-level curriculum without them. She also shares that Daniel was unable to demonstrate proficiency in the grade level reading TEKS assessed by the district’s End of Year assessment, having scored in the below average range, and that historical TELPAS indicates he may be in the Beginning to Intermediate level across the domains assessed. While this is not a final decision as the LPAC must review STAAR and TELPAS data for Daniel, early review points to Daniel being not ready for reclassification, this year.

Yes, LEAs can operate their bilingual or ESL program on specific campuses within the district for the purpose of combining resources to support a full and effective program. The decision whether to provide transportation to these campuses is a local decision. However, it is important that districts provide equal educational opportunities to every student and in recognition of the educational needs of EB students (TEC §29.051). Typically, districts provide ESL program services at all campuses where EB students are enrolled and are more likely to concentrate their bilingual program on specific campuses to maximize staff and resources. In an LEA that is required to offer the bilingual program, the parent of an identified EB student in the elementary grades must be offered the bilingual program, even if the program is provided on a campus other than the child’s home campus. If the parent chooses to remain at the campus without the bilingual program, the parent will need to deny the bilingual program and accept the ESL program provided at the home campus. LEAs are encouraged to analyze relevant data trends periodically to ensure campus program offerings are effective and accessible to EB students.

The alternative language program (ALP) code is a PEIMS code used to identify students who are temporarily receiving alternative methods of instruction when an LEA is unable to provide a bilingual program or ESL program due to the LEA not having sufficient number of appropriately certified teachers. LEAs will have filed an application for a bilingual exception and/or ESL waiver to the TEA, to approve the implementation of temporary alternative methods to meet the needs of the EB students. The temporary alternative methods should align as closely as possible to the district’s intended bilingual or ESL program. The alternative methods must include methods for meeting the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the EB students, and the manner through which the EB students will be given opportunity to master the TEKS and ELPS.

Resource(s)

Alternative Methods
Descriptor Table Guide for Bilingual and ESL Programs

If an LEA and parent or guardian approve, the students who are not identified as EB may also participate in bilingual with the understanding that the integrity of the bilingual program model is upheld (TAC §89.1233). The number of participating students who are not EB may not exceed 40% of the number of students enrolled in the program districtwide. It is important to emphasize that 60% EB student and 40% non-EB/English proficient student participation refers to the district wide program and not the campus or classroom level implementation. LEAs may consider their unique context when making decisions about participation of non-EB students in bilingual education as these decisions are made at the local level.

The LPAC at the home campus:

• includes the LPAC administrator, an ESL certified teacher, and an LPAC parent. It is not necessary to include a bilingual certified teacher if one is not present on the home campus.
• should be able to explain the benefits of the bilingual program and why it is recommended for the student. Parents/guardians must be fully aware of access to and benefits of the bilingual program to make an informed decision.
• should not hesitate to recommend the bilingual program even though it is not offered on the home campus. There should be a district procedure for connecting the family to the appropriate bilingual campus (clear communication between the two campuses, busing information, knowledge about exact location of bilingual campus, etc.).
• should not present both the bilingual and ESL program simultaneously to the parents, especially when both programs are not available on the home campus, because bilingual and ESL program placement is an LPAC recommendation. The LPAC should make its recommendation based on the best program for the student, not the program’s location.

• accept bilingual program placement, district systems should ensure a smooth transition between the home and bilingual program campus.
• deny bilingual program placement, denial of program services paperwork should be signed. Then, the home campus should explain the benefits of the ESL program provided on the home campus and offer parents the opportunity for ESL program participation.
• If ESL program participation is accepted, the student’s PEIMS Parental Permission Code will be (A) for denying bilingual program participation and accepting ESL participation.
• It is important that the school district continues to remind parents of the opportunity for participation in the bilingual program, and if/when the bilingual program comes to the home campus, the district ensures the student’s parents understand their child’s right to access it.

As per TAC §89.1205 (g), districts are authorized to establish a bilingual program at grade levels beyond elementary school, including DLI programs. When a district opts to provide bilingual programming at the secondary levels, it is required to adhere to all program requirements as described in §§89.1210, 89.1227, 89.1228, and 89.1229. The secondary level refers to grades 6-12 or 7-12. In some instances, 6th grade is not considered secondary when it is clustered with the elementary grades.

In DLI program models (one-way and two-way), as per TAC §89.1210 (c)(3) and (4), instruction in the partner language never falls below 50% of the overall instructional time. At the secondary level, the minimum expectation for DLI instruction in the partner language equates to 50% of the total number of core content periods, e.g., two courses per academic year delivered in the partner language. In summary:

• a minimum of two courses to be provided in the partner language at each grade level for the duration of the secondary DLI program and
• a minimum of one language/literacy/communication course to be provided in English at each grade level for the duration of the DLI program.

Certification Requirements for DLI Program Teachers

The secondary DLI program implementation guidance reflects best practices identified in the research, namely:

• Provision of language/literacy/communications instruction in the partner language and in English at every grade level to address the DLI program bilingualism/biliteracy goal
• Flexibility in elective programming to encourage local decision-making, promote responsiveness to local needs, and allow for student choice, which are all practices associated with DLI program sustainability at the secondary level

Resource(s)

DLI Program Overview

Yes. TAC §74.12(b)(5)(F) provides the requirements for students who have successfully completed a DLI two-way or one-way program in accordance with TAC §89.1210(c)(3) and (4), TAC §89.1227, and TAC §89.1228 at the elementary level to satisfy one credit of the two LOTE credits required in a language other than English. Successful completion includes students who have:

1. participated in a dual language immersion program for at least five consecutive school years,
2. achieved elevated levels of academic competence as demonstrated by performance of meets or masters grade level on the STAAR in English or Spanish, as applicable,
3. achieved proficiency in both English and a language other than English as demonstrated by scores of proficient or higher in the reading and speaking domains on language proficiency or achievement tests in both languages.

No, Texas offers a performance acknowledgment for bilingualism and biliteracy as indicated in TEC §74.14. An LEA may opt to offer a locally developed Seal of Biliteracy.

Resource(s)

TEC §74.14
Seal of Biliteracy, Texas, outside source

Both early-exit and late-exit programs are required for all elementary grades PK-5 or 6 if clustered with elementary grades (TAC §89.1205(a)). Early-exit programs decrease the number of instructional minutes in the primary language at a more rapid pace than late-exit programs, therefore increasing the number of English language instructional minutes. TAC §89.1210 (c)(1) and TAC §89.1210 (c)(2) define transitional bilingual program models as follows:

• Early-exit TBE is a bilingual program model in which EB students are prepared to meet reclassification criteria no earlier than two or later than five years.
• Late-exit TBE is a bilingual program model in which EB students are prepared to meet reclassification criteria not earlier than six or later than seven years.

Resource(s)

Identification and Reclassification Flow Chart

According to TAC §89.1227, both DLI one-way and two-way programs provide at least 50% of the instruction in the partner language at all grade levels for the duration of the program, however, they differ only based on the population of students participating. Per §89.1210 (c)(3) and (4), a one-way DLI is a bilingual/biliteracy program which provides instruction in the partner language and English to identified EB students. Most of the participants in a one-way DLI program are identified EB students but may include former EB students who have reclassified as English proficient (EP). The participation of reclassified EP students in a one-way DLI program does not make it a two-way DLI program, particularly at elementary grades. A two-way DLI is a bilingual/biliterate program which provides instruction in the partner language and English to balanced numbers of identified EB students and non-EB students with intentional design from the start of the program. A two-way DLI program strives to maintain a ratio of 50% EB students to 50% non-EB students and has no more than two-thirds speakers of one language to one-third speakers of the other language in each classroom (Howard, et al., 2018). This balance allows for cross-linguistic pairing of students.

There is not a requirement for a minimum number of minutes for an ESL pull-out program model. It is up to the district to ensure the amount of time provided to EB students participating in the ESL pull-out program is equal to the ELAR instruction of non-EB students. It is important to note that if students are physically pulled out of the classroom for ESL support, EB students should not be taken out of content instruction nor should EB students lose access to subjects such as art, music, and physical education.

CBLI is an integrated approach to language instruction in which language is developed within the context of content delivery that is linguistically responsive and can be implemented in bilingual and ESL program models. Sheltered instruction is a similar term used to describe instruction that makes content comprehensible while supporting language development. However, CBLI emphasizes the targeted and intentional methods used to meet the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of EB students (as described in TAC §89.1210(b)) through the medium of content in the students’ primary language and/or English. Additionally, CBLI connects to the linguistically accommodated content instruction mentioned in the ELPS (TAC §74.4(b)) by encompassing language-focused methods that are communicated, sequenced, and scaffolded.
Content-based language instruction:

• applies to all programs for EB students (bilingual and ESL)
• applies to any language of instruction (primary/partner language and English) is part of Tier I instruction
• holds high expectations at grade level in each content area, and encompasses an additive bilingualism approach

Resource(s)

TXEL CBLI

Best Practice Scenario

Jamelly:
Jamelly is a middle school student at Liberty Middle School. She demonstrates listening and reading comprehension skills that are nearing but not yet comparable to non-EB grade-level peers. Jamelly’s ESL teacher, Ms. Amador, provides push in support to Jamelly in her ELA class. Jamelly’s ELA teacher went on maternity leave and has been temporarily covered by a substitute, Mr. Aparicio. Mr. Aparicio, Ms. Amador, and Ms. Brea, the ELA instructional coach, meet during their shared prep time to discuss Jamelly’s language needs, and that of other students who are served in the ELA classroom. Ms. Amador is pleased to know that the principal has designated the instructional coach to support Mr. Aparicio in methods for implementing Content-Based Language Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brea, will be developing detailed lesson plans that will be reviewed with Mr. Aparicio and Ms. Amador to coordinate supports and services to students that are emergent bilingual. They will collectively focus on a few strategies and maintain observational data on the use of those strategies to assess the impact of the supports. Although students have been using sentence frames, Ms. Brea suggests making these visible and universally accessible so students who want to share orally can leverage them consistently and without a raised affective filter. They also decide that a top priority is to deliver instructions concisely and with the use of icons that are predictable and understood by the students to ensure that clarity of instruction is not a barrier to the student’s performance. Lastly, they will collectively identify connections to prior knowledge in the lesson plans based on Ms. Amador’s intimate knowledge of the students she serves and taking action to explicitly bridge the potential misconceptions or gaps in the knowledge through priming activities or frontloading activities.

ELLA, ESOL, ELDA are optional for use in supporting EB students. ESL program requirements are not based on the use of these courses, rather by the implementation standards set in TAC §89.1210 (d). ELLA and ESOL are not restricted by students’ English language proficiency levels.

• English Learners Language Arts (ELLA) course is an optional substitute course for English Language Arts and Reading (ELAR) for EB students in grades 7 and 8. The ELLA TEKS (TAC §128.22 for grade 7 and TAC §128.23 for grade 8) address all the TAC Chapter 110 English Language Arts and Reading TEKS for grades 7 and 8 and have additional student expectations to support second language acquisition.
• English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) I and II are optional substitute courses for English I and English II respectively for EB students. The ESOL TEKS (TAC §128.34 for ESOL I and TAC §128.35 for ESOL II) address all the TAC Chapter 110 English Language Arts and Reading TEKS for English I and II and have additional student expectations to support second language acquisition.
• English Language Development and Acquisition (ELDA) course is to be taken concurrently with a corequisite language arts and reading course. The recommended corequisites are ESOL I and ESOL II, though the course may be paired with other state-approved English or Spanish language arts and reading courses as appropriate. The ELDA TEKS (TAC §128.36) have been designed to provide instructional opportunities for recent immigrant students with beginning levels of English proficiency. The ELDA course satisfies elective credit requirements for graduation. Students may take this course with a different corequisite for a maximum of two credits. LEAs can use ELDA at the middle school level, paired with ELAR or ELLA, and students can receive high school credit for it.

Resource(s)

For more information or questions related to the ELLA or ELDA courses, contact the TEA Curriculum division at instructional.materials@tea.texas.gov.

For information on instructional materials for these courses, contact the TEA Instructional Materials Division at instructional.materials@tea.texas.gov.

The special education teacher would not need to be bilingual or ESL certified if the teacher pushes into the student’s general education bilingual or ESL classroom. They also do not need to be bilingual or ESL certified if the student is served through a resource time that does not make up the entire instructional period, and where the student has access to the bilingual or ESL program through the appropriately certified bilingual/ESL classroom teacher. If the EB student is served in a self-contained special education classroom where all content instruction is delivered by the special education teacher, then the teacher of the self-contained special education classroom must also be appropriately certified to provide bilingual or ESL program services. Therefore, if the self-contained special education teacher in this case is not appropriately certified, a bilingual exception or ESL waiver would need to be filed for this classroom.

No, the administrator in an ARD committee meeting cannot serve a dual role, however, a general education or special education teacher may serve in a dual role as the LPAC representative in an ARD committee meeting (TAC §89.1050(c)(1)(J). The best representative of the needs of the EB student on the ARD committee is the bilingual or ESL educator from the LPAC that directly instructs the student and has detailed knowledge of the student’s linguistic needs and strengths.

Best Practice Scenario

Marlene
Marlene is a 6th grade student at Liberty Middle. She is identified as an emergent bilingual student and is served by special education. Marlene is served in an ESL pull-out program model. The ARD committee is comprised of the parent, Mr. Cisneros, Marlene’s Special Education teacher, Ms. Ponce, the Assistant Principal, serving as the administrator, Ms. Joyner, Marlene’s Math teacher, serving as the general education teacher, Ms. Lopez, Marlene’s ELAR teacher who is ESL certified, serving as the LPAC representative, and Mr. Gonzalez, Marlene’s Communities in Schools mentor. Although Ms. Ponce is a member of Liberty Middle School’s LPAC, for the purposes of Marlene’s IEP meeting, she will serve only as the ARD committees administrator, allowing Ms. Lopez, who has detailed knowledge of Marlene’s linguistic needs and strengths, to serve as the LPAC representative on the ARD committee.

No. For a student who is EB and is also served by special education, the ARD Committee, which includes the required LPAC representative, must consider the language needs of the student (CFR §300.324(ii)). All members of the ARD Committee must have the opportunity to participate in a collaborative manner in developing the IEP (Individualized Education Plan) (TAC §89.1050(g). The LPAC is responsible for facilitating the participation of EB students in other special programs for which they are eligible, while ensuring full access to the language program required under the TEC §29.053. The ARD Committee must develop an IEP that considers the student’s academic, developmental, functional and communication needs. Additionally, the ARD committee will make decisions regarding assessment, program services and instruction. It is important that a dual-identified student be offered the legally required specially designed instruction, as well as be offered the opportunity to exercise their right to a bilingual education as outlined in the law. The LPAC offers a critical lens into the strengths and needs of the student that can support the development of a holistic IEP to appropriately serve the dual-identified student. Similarly, the LPAC must coordinate with any other special programs for which the EB student is eligible, including Section 504, advanced academics and gifted and talented, while ensuring that EB students have full access to language program services.

Resource(s)

Guidance Related to ARD and LPAC Collaboration
Guidance on Identification and Reclassification of Dually Identified Students

An attempt must be made to administer the English language proficiency assessment for identification. If no response or a response other than English is provided, the trial is scored as a non-fluent score. The assessment should be included in the LPAC documentation. Currently, there are no allowances for alternative identification assessments under Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Resource(s)

• Texas preLAS/LAS links Identification Assessment FAQs
• LPAC Guidance for Deaf and Hard of Hearing (Video and PowerPoint)

No, an EB student who receives special education services cannot be limited from access to the appropriate bilingual or ESL program. Formal or informal policies or procedures of “no dual services” including only permitting students to receive either EB services or special education services, but not both, are not permissible. Similarly, as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004, LEAs must provide timely evaluations to any student suspected of having a qualifying disability, including students who are EB. If a parent or guardian of an EB student with a disability declines services under the IDEA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, that student remains entitled to all EB rights and services.

Resource(s)

English Learners Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), pages 24-25 (January 2015)

Best Practice Scenario

Ahn

Ahn is a 3rd grade student who recently moved from Illinois and enrolled at Liberty Elementary School over the summer. Ahn will be served by special education as a student with an intellectual disability and a speech language impairment. On the Vietnamese version of the HLS, the mother indicated Ahn’s primary home language is Vietnamese, triggering the emergent bilingual identification process. The LPAC has four weeks from the first day of school to finalize identification and placement should Ahn be found to be eligible for bilingual education services. The IEP team at Liberty needs to hold the Ahn’s first IEP meeting within 30 days of transferring from outside the district. To kickstart the collaboration, Mr. Quinteros, the LPAC coordinator, reaches out to Ms. Amada, the Special Education chair, to schedule a series of collaboration meetings over the next few weeks to ensure both of their timelines are met and the student is adequately served.

If a student’s language ability in English is so limited or the student’s disabilities are so severe that the English language proficiency assessment for identification cannot be administered, the LPAC, in conjunction with the ARD committee, serves to identify the student as EB. (TAC §89.1226 (h)). Maintaining a lens of operating in service of the student and engaging the parents and families early in the discussions is imperative to decision-making. The assessment should be maintained in the LPAC documentation. Currently, there are no allowances for alternative identification assessments under Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Resource(s)

Texas preLAS/LAS Links Identification Assessment FAQs

No. If an EB student has met course requirements for graduation and is only receiving transition services through special education, they are not required to take TELPAS. A student that is only receiving transition services is not coded in the K-12 grade level. Similarly, if an EB student has met all curriculum course requirements for graduation but is in school only for EOC completion requirements, the student will not be required to take the TELPAS. TELPAS is only required for EB students enrolled in grade K-12.

Districts are required to use the current year’s EB/English Learner Reclassification Criteria Chart (TAC §89.1226 (i)). This standardized criteria for reclassification applies to most EB students who are also eligible for special education services. In rare cases, an EB student with a most significant cognitive disability who is receiving special education services may qualify to be reclassified using criteria permitted under TAC §89.1226(m). Only students that meet the eligibility criteria noted on the STAAR Alternate participation requirements shall be considered for this individualized reclassification process. The individualized reclassification process of EB students with a significant cognitive disability begins as early in the current school year as possible to be utilized within that school year or at the end of a school year to be applied in the next school year. For students in 1st and 2nd grade, the TEA approved norm-referenced standardized achievement test: Iowa, is used to determine the satisfactory performance.

Resource(s)

Emergent Bilingual Reclassification Criteria Chart
Alternative Subjective Teacher Evaluation Form
Guidance on Identification and Reclassification of Dual Identified Students

Best Practice Scenario

Jubilee:

Jubilee is a student with an intellectual disability that receives special education services and bilingual education services. The ARD committee has identified that Jubilee is a student that qualifies as a student with a most significant cognitive disability. In line with Texas statute, the ARD committee, in conjunction with the LPAC, decide that Jubilee will be eligible for the individualized process reclassification. As a first decision, they indicate that Jubilee will take the TELPAS Alternate and STAAR Alternate 2. They also decide that in order for Jubilee to be eligible for reclassification, she must be able to score at a Developing Independence across all four domains. Additionally, she will have to score at a Level II Satisfactory in the STAAR Alternate 2.

Grading policies are determined and adopted at the local level. Per TEC, §28.0216(1), grading exemptions for newcomer EB students are not appropriate. For newcomers who are also EB, the focus should be on instructional assessment practices that facilitate access to the curriculum and opportunities for varied methods for demonstrating content knowledge. Beginning levels of English language proficiency should not be a basis for failure or retention.

Resource(s)

U.S. Department of Education’s Newcomer Toolkit
Newcomers in Texas Flyer

No, EB students cannot be exempt from taking STAAR, including newcomer students. However, if an identified EB student in grades 3-8th is documented as an unschooled asylee or refugee in his or her first year in U.S. schools, the student can be exempt for that first school year as determined by the LPAC (TAC §100.1005(c)(3)(e)).

Grade placement of any student is a local decision. Districts and charters should not factor in English language proficiency when placing a student into an appropriate grade, as determined by age or prior school setting. However, there are several important factors to consider when determining grade placement for newcomer EB students:

• prior schooling documentation from their home country that demonstrates grade completion
• current age of the student and estimated age of graduation (students can be enrolled in high school through age 21 as described in the Student Attendance Accounting Handbook in section 3.2.3 on Age Eligibility)
• social-emotional factors associated with appropriate age placement

Resource(s)

U.S. Department of Education’s Newcomer Toolkit

For purposes of calculating years in U.S. schools, only schools based within the 50 states, Washington D.C., and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) schools are considered U.S. schools. This includes any home schools or private schools.

Resource(s)

Texas Assessments-U.S. Years in Schools

Yes, open-enrollment charter schools and DOIs must comply with bilingual and ESL program certification requirements even if their general certification requirements differ. TEC §29.061.

Resource(s)

District of Innovation (DOI) FAQ Process FAQ

TAC §89.1210(d) provides the descriptions for the two state-approved ESL program models (ESL content-based and ESL pull-out), that apply to ESL programs in prekindergarten through twelfth grade. To meet compliance standards for an ESL content-based program, EB students need to receive all content instruction from an ESL-certified teacher(s), which includes ELAR, mathematics, science, and social studies. To meet compliance standards for an ESL pull-out program, EB students need to receive ELAR instruction by an ESL certified teacher(s). The ESL pull-out model can be met in the following three ways:

• The ELAR teacher is also ESL certified and provides the ESL program within the classroom.
• The ELAR teacher co-teaches with an ESL certified teacher who provides the full-time ESL program within the classroom
• If the ELAR teacher is not ESL certified, EB students have an additional ESL course/time period that provides ELAR instruction by a teacher who is certified in ELAR and ESL

Resource(s)

ESL Waiver Scenario Chain
TxEL Program Implementation Video Series
TxEL Program Implementation Resources

Best Practice Scenario

Areisy:
Areisy currently attends Budaful Charter School where she has participated in a dual-language immersion (DLI) program for the last six years. Budaful only has elementary schools and students must enroll in a district school for middle school, after 6th grade. Areisy’s grandmother, Elena, really appreciated the academic growth Areisy was able to demonstrate in a school that supported her bilingualism and is sad that the options she has for middle school do not offer a DLI program. Fortunately, there are three schools that offer open enrollment and implement ESL programs. She wants to prioritize teacher expertise in serving emergent bilingual students to better offer a sense of continuity to Areisy as she transitions out of a DLI.As she looks at what program model will benefit Areisy the most given her options, Elena compares Angelou, Neruda, and Dickinson Middle School.
At Angelou, where emergent bilingual students are served in an ESL content-based program model, Areisy would rotate each period and see an ESL certified teacher for each subject area, like history, math, ELAR, science, art, and P.E.
At Neruda, which offers an ESL pull-out program model, the English Language Arts and Reading TEKS are split into two separate classes, however, both classes are led by an ESL-certified teacher
At Dickinson, which also offers an ESL pull-out program model, the ELAR teacher is not ESL-certified, but they co-teach with an ESL-certified teacher. The teachers plan together, where the ESL-certified teacher provides input through the lens of her expertise to better support EB students in the classroom, like making recommendations for linguistic accommodations and intentional integration of the English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) in every lesson. The ESL-certified teacher also leads part of the class when teaching.
Elena decides that having a program where all teachers that instruct Areisy have a certification to educate Emergent Bilingual students is the best option for her grandchild. Therefore, she selects to enroll Areisy at Angelou Middle School.

TESOL certification is not listed as an approved certification for teaching in an ESL program in Texas. Requirements for Public School Personnel Assignments that delineates the teacher assignments with allowable certificates for all grade levels and subject areas are outlined in the TAC §231.

It is recommended this position be funded with local/state funds as these duties described are required by policy guidance under the Bilingual Education Allotment (BEA) Program and/or are state mandated.

It may be possible to split fund this position with BEA and Title III funds, however any duties performed to meet local or other federal requirements would need to be considered in this funding decision.

This would be allowable as long as the intern is only working in a bilingual classroom or with EB and/or immigrant students specifically 100% of the time and the position is supplemental to other positions.

NOTE: However, if this is to fulfill their student teaching requirement to earn their degree, then it is NOT allowable.

If state or local funds were used in the prior school year to provide services, and those services are provided again in the current school year with Title III funds, the USDE will presume a supplant has occurred if the state or local funds are replaced by federal funds. LEAs are not permitted to use federal funds to replace state or local funds. Even in cases where a budget shortfall is anticipated, the LEA may not plan to use federal funds to cover a shortage of state or local funds.

It is possible to document that services from the prior year would not have been continued as a result of a lack of state or local funds. The documentation must demonstrate that the original source of funding is no longer available and, as a result, that the services would not be provided in the coming year. This situation must be documented at the time the decision is made to discontinue services; it cannot be documented after the fact.

Best Practice Scenario

An LEA paid for a reading specialist at a campus in the previous year from state and local resources but decides to use Title III, Part A funds to pay for that teaching position in the current year. This would be considered supplanting because the LEA is replacing state and local resources with Title III, Part A resources to pay for the same position. The LEA may be able to rebut the assumption of supplanting if it can document that the position was eliminated because of state budget cuts, and then the decision was made to fund it using federal funds. The LEA would need records to confirm the following:

• There was in fact a reduced amount or lack of state funds available to pay for the position
• The LEA made the decision to eliminate the position without taking into consideration the availability of federal funding
• The reasons for the decision to eliminate the position

In any case, the independent audit may still consider it as a supplant.

All LEAs have the responsibility, under Lau v. Nichols* (OCR), to ensure that EB and/or immigrant students have equal access to education and making the curriculum accessible to emergent bilingual students would be part of meeting that federal requirement.

However, a position as Professional Development Facilitator, in and of itself, may be an allowable use of Title III funds, since Title III specifically requires professional development. The district would have to ensure that the professional development is supplemental and not for meeting other federal, state, or local requirements for serving emergent bilingual students and meets all other supporting conditions (appropriately addressed in the application, benefits emergent bilingual students only by serving their teachers only, and costs are necessary and reasonable).

*Supreme Court decision enforced by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR)

Yes, BEA funds are an allowable funding source to support bilingual classroom teachers. Visit the Reading Academies TEA page for additional support.

Resource(s)

HB 3 Reading Academies

This is allowable with BEA funds but not with Title III since LEAs are required to hire appropriately certified teachers required under state policy to serve their emergent bilingual students.

NOTE: If the LEA has Title II, Part A funds, these funds could be used to pay stipends or bonuses to highly qualified certified teachers as part of the LEA’s recruitment, hiring, and retention strategies to increase the number of highly qualified teachers in high need areas. This need should be addressed in the district/campus needs assessment.

No. Annual stipends are not an allowable activity with Title III funds. An LEA can also use its BEA direct costs to pay for the stipends to teachers certified in a Bilingual Education area who are teachers of record. This is an allowable use of state funds pursuant to TEC 42.153(c) (supplements for teachers).

Title III funds should NOT be used for the initial assessment used to help identify the student as emergent bilingual, as the initial oral language proficiency test which is required, under State policy (TAC Ch. 89.1226), for students with a language other than English indicated on the home language survey.

It is never allowable to use Title III funds for an annual assessment of the EB students’ language proficiency, as LEAs are required, under State policy, to administer the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS). While PNP schools are not required to administer the TELPAS, an annual assessment of English language proficiency is required for English learners under Title I, Part A, Section 1111(b)(2)(G) and Title III must be supplemental to Title I, Part A.

If the LEA has filed for an ESL waiver, they must use 10% of the state bilingual education allotment (BEA) for trainings. If the LEA is building capacity above and beyond what is required under State policy, the LEA may use Title III funds to increase their number of ESL certified teachers.

NOTE: It is not allowable to use BEA nor Title III funds to pay for the cost of having the certification added to the teacher’s certificate. Consider using Title I, Part A funds if funds are available.

Title III-funded extra duty pay would be allowable provided that the professional development or training is not required under State policy (in other words, as long as the training is supplemental; also must meet all other supporting conditions, such as necessary and reasonable, etc.).

Extra duty/supplemental activities are activities being performed outside a staff’s contracted work hours.

Resource(s)

Funding Guidebook, Page 9

Yes, it is allowable to use Title III funds for activities that “assist parents in helping their children to improve their academic achievement and becoming active participants in the education of their children,” provided the activities are above and beyond parent outreach/involvement activities to meet local, state, or other federal requirements.

NOTE: If the paraprofessional is a supplemental staff position paid out of Title III, the LEA will want to make sure this expectation is not already listed as a job duty. It is recommended that the LEA consider stating language in the job posting/description that addresses planning, assisting and conducting parent/family engagements that occur during the school hours. This would then allow for the LEA to apply supplemental pay for any additional engagement activities that occur outside of school hours.

The LEA will need to evaluate if they are meeting State policy in meeting requirements with appropriately certified staff. Once completed, the LEA will ensure they are using the correct funding source listed below.

BEA Funds – (10% required due to a bilingual exception and/or ESL waiver) – required to use for certification training for staff not appropriately certified.

Title III Funds – to strengthen and build capacity of program services that is going above and beyond what is required under State policy.

NOTE: When using BEA funds for stipends to teachers to attend the certification training, LEAs should use internal controls when disbursing and accounting for any stipends and should pay at the completion of the training.

Best Practice Scenario

Ruby ISD filed for a bilingual exception which now required them to set aside $10,000 of their total $100,000 of BEA funds for the purpose to support the 10 teachers not yet appropriately certified, per state policy. Ruby ISD subtracted the $10K from their direct 55% leaving them $45,000 to expend on direct support.

Mr. Salinas is one of the teachers who is seeking to be bilingual certified and listed on the exception. Ruby ISD has supported him on acquiring the content and skills to be successful on his state certification exams. Mr. Salinas learned of a conference that is being offered in New Mexico that he feels will support his growth in supporting his students.

Ruby ISD is not allowed to send Mr. Salinas to this out-of-state conference out of the $10K reserved, but it is allowable to send him out of the remaining $45K, because the purpose of him going is not about him passing the exam. Because Ruby ISD has 3 specific BEA funding sources, they have to be very clear in their justifications when it comes to professional development expenditures.

• Total BEA funds= $100,000
• Required 10% = $10K
• Remaining Direct = $45K
• Indirect = $45K

If the training helps to fulfill a local, state, or other federal requirement, then it is not allowable to use Title III funds. To use Title III funds for professional development opportunities, the training needs to be supplemental.

Examples to consider including:
English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) - LEAs are required by the State to implement the ELPS, just as they are required to implement the TEKS (the State’s curriculum standards); thus, training that is part of how the LEA meets this requirement would be funded with local/state funds. If, however, the training is provided above and beyond the LEA’s plan for ensuring implementation of the ELPS, then it may be funded with Title III funds.

Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) - LEAs are required by the State to implement the LPAC process; thus, training that is a part of how the LEA meets this requirement is not allowable with Title III funds.

Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) – LEAs are required by the State to implement the TELPAS; thus, training that is part of how the LEA meets this requirement would be funded with local/state funds. If, however, the training is provided for a purpose above and beyond the processes required by the State, then it may be supplemental. For example, training that is solely on how to use student TELPAS data to inform or improve instruction of emergent bilingual students may be funded with Title III funds.

Yes. You can find this guidance referenced in the Reading Academies FAQ question 1 under District Decision-Making.

Resource(s)

Reading Academies FAQ

This would be a local decision.

The following examples would be local/state funded;

• translation of instructional materials or instruction in a language other than English is the LEA’s responsibility, under Lau v. Nichols* (OCR) to offer emergent bilingual students services to help them overcome their language barriers and to ensure that emergent bilingual students have equal access to education and educational excellence.
• translation of general information available to families of emergent bilingual students (e.g., LEA website, newsletters, external communications to families, etc.).

• Title III parent engagement meetings or Title III family engagement events
• translation of materials to be used for supplemental emergent bilingual parent classes Newsletters to emergent bilingual families to meet Title III engagement requirements

In accordance with Title III, Part A, Section 3115(d)(6), this would be an allowable use of Title III funds, provided that all other supporting conditions are met, such as:

• The LEA has determined through a needs assessment this expenditure is needed.
• The activity is reflected in the LEA’s ESSA Consolidated Federal Application;
• The costs involved are necessary and reasonable; and
• The program serves only emergent bilingual students.

Assessments of identified emergent bilingual students are required by the State and the use of Title III funds would not be allowable. These assessments include, but are not limited to, initial oral language proficiency test to identify the student as an emergent bilingual, annual English language proficiency assessments (TELPAS), and assessments of academic achievement (STAAR, EOC, etc.). Assessments throughout the school year to measure language growth may be Title III funded since this is not a state required activity.

For emergent bilingual students in grades kindergarten and first grade, the LEA is required to use their local/state funds to meet the state requirement. An LEA may use Title III funds to offer Bilingual/ESL summer school for additional grade levels that are above and beyond the state requirement.

It is allowable under Title III, Part A to expend funds on parent trainings which may include a language comprehensive computer technology program (ex. ESL classes, language software programs, parent academies, etc.). When parents strengthen their own literacy skills, they are empowered to communicate more with their child’s teacher or school.

Technology (to include interactive boards, computers, printers, classroom response, systems,etc.) may be an allowable expense for serving emergent bilingual students in a secondary classroom, based on the following:

• For use in a bilingual or self-contained ESL classroom with emergent bilingual students, the purchase of technology would be an allowable expense, provided all other supporting conditions are met (addressed in an application, costs are necessary and reasonable, etc.).
• For use in a general education classroom with emergent bilingual students, an LEA would need to consider using local or other federal funds that are intended to meet the needs of all students.

If the library books and media are purchased for bilingual/ESL classrooms serving emergent bilingual students, then this would be an allowable cost under Title III. Once library books and media are purchased with local/state funds, the LEA will not be able to leverage federal funds for similar purchases that meet the same purpose.

NOTE: It is not allowable to use BEA or Title III funds to purchase books and media for the general library.

Yes, as long as the emergent bilingual students are identified in an appropriate manner and the private school has developed an agreement (written documentation and format of agreement used should be the local policy standard) with the LEA of geographic jurisdiction, emergent bilingual students in a private school may participate in programs and receive services and products funded by Title III.

Private schools may not receive funds directly but must make arrangements through the agreement to receive programs, services, and products from the LEA.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) specifies that assistance to emergent bilingual students in private schools should be “comparable” to that of emergent bilingual students in public schools. The recommended method to determine comparability is to use the per pupil allocation of Title III funds as the basis for the cost of Title III products and services in the private school.

For example, assuming a per pupil allocation of $100, the private school would receive an equivalent amount of products and services for each emergent bilingual student served. If 10 emergent bilingual students were identified in the private school, then that private school would receive approximately $1000 worth of products and services.

The Budgeting Costs Guidance Handbook lists the following allowable foods costs for parents and/or students.

For example, assuming a per pupil allocation of $100, the private school would receive an equivalent amount of products and services for each emergent bilingual student served. If 10 emergent bilingual students were identified in the private school, then that private school would receive approximately $1000 worth of products and services.

• Nutritional snacks for students during extended day (after-school) programs
• Nutritional snacks for children in child care while parents are participating in grant activities
• Food necessary to conduct nutrition education programs for parents
• Parent engagement activities in which refreshments are necessary to encourage participation or attendance by parents, such as in low-income areas, and thus meet program objectives.

Yes, the state defines this expense to be an activity that falls under Section 3115 (c)(3)

To provide and implement other effective activities and strategies that enhance or supplement language instruction educational programs for English learners, which (A) shall include parent, family, and community engagement activities; and (B) may include strategies that serve to coordinate and align related programs

NOTE: Since Title III, Part A funds are supplemental to local and other federal funds, LEAs need to reference their policies to see if funds have already been designated for this type of activity.

It is recommended that an LEA leverage their local/state funds first because a parent needing information provided in a language they understand, is not tied to the program. Access to information and services to all parents/families is a basic expectation of a public school.

NOTE: It is allowable for an LEA to expend Title III funds for interpreters, as a way to increase participation to Title III events/activities. It would not be allowed for meetings/events that are open to all families.

An LEA would need to ensure that they wrap this resource with professional development opportunities for the intended audience. Title III funds are to be used to directly impact emergent bilingual students, including immigrant students and their families or professional development activities for educators and school leaders.