Title III-NCLBLearning Support :

Title III Biennial Report

Minnesota

Title III Program

Biennial Evaluation Report

2002-03 & 2003-04

State Formula Grants under Title III, Part A, English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement Act

(Public Law 107-110)

CFDA NUMBER: 84.365A

FORM APPROVED

OMB NO. 1885-0553, EXP. DATE 8/31/07

DUE DATE: December 1, 2004

RESUBMITTED: March 30, 2005

Instructions for Completing the State Formula Grant

Biennial Evaluation Report

By December 1, 2004, States must complete and submit to the Department this Biennial Evaluation Report for the Title III State Formula Grant Program. This report is based on student performance data and other related information from the two-year period of fiscal year (FY) 2002-03 and FY 2003-04. Be sure to read the instructions for this document.

Transmittal Instructions

To expedite the receipt of this State Formula Grant Biennial Evaluation Report, please send your submission via the Internet as a .doc file, PDF file, .rtf, or .txt file. Send electronic submissions to: TitleIII.Apps@ed.gov

A State that submits only a paper submission should mail the submission by express courier. Do not use surface mail. Due to the screening process of Federal mail it may cause lengthy delays. Mail to:

Elizabeth Judd

Office of English Language Acquisition

U.S. Department of Education

550 12th Street, SW

Room PCP 10-008

Washington, D.C. 20024-6510

(202) 245-7110 or (202) 245-7155

Email: Elizabeth.Judd@ed.gov

The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 5.00 hours (or 300 minutes) per response, 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 estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-6510. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: OELA, U.S. Department of Education 550 12th Street SW, Room PCP 10-008, Washington, D.C. 20024-6510.

State Response for Meeting Title III State Formula Grant

Biennial Evaluation Reporting Requirements

Instructions

States are to provide detailed information for each of the nine elements required for the State Formula Grant Biennial Evaluation Report. States should respond to the items listed under each of the elements. Some elements require more than one response. Please respond in the space labeled, “State response." If any of the information requested is not available, please explain why it is not available and provide a timeline for submitting the information to the Department.

This document includes items and tables for information that must be submitted in this biennial report and in future biennial reports. There are items that are also placeholders for future responses, and these items have deferral instructions.

Please note the following:

Specific instructions for each item are shown in bold type and enclosed in parentheses.

Several items may not be applicable.

Responses are required for all portions of items and tables that are not deferred or are not applicable at this time (see labels or instructions in the items).

This document is written in rich text format [rtf] for the purpose of making the document format more user-friendly and to reduce the chance of table distortion. Please do not use another format other than the one provided. This data collection package has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget, and responses will only be acceptable through this approved package. The page breaks will automatically provide sufficient space for response. Provide narrative responses in the spaces as indicated.

Responses to portions of the following questions or tables are deferred until 2006:

1. Types of language instruction educational programs used by subgrantees to teach LEP students [SEC. 3121(b)(1) p.1701, 3123(b)(2) p. 1704]

What types of language instruction educational programs were implemented by Title III subgrantees during school years 2002-03 and 2003-04? [SEC.3121(a)(1) p. 1701, SEC. 3123(b)(1) p.1704]

Check all that apply:

State response 1.1: (Provide narrative here. Provide a brief description of the programs checked. Include information regarding intensity and duration of instruction, and, if using more than one language, instructional time in each language. Include other information as needed.) Descriptions of the programs listed can be found on NCELA’s website: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/glossary.html

In the state of Minnesota, a variety of program types for English Language Learners (ELL) exist. Several factors influence the type of programming that is designed and implemented in a district and then in individual schools within that district. The demographic make up of the district will determine where and how the schools will set up the programs. Heavy concentration of one language group may result in bilingual settings or sheltered classes that address English language development as it relates to the speech patterns and syntax of the dominant culture that is being served. In Minneapolis Public Schools, the Native Language Literacy (NLL) programs provide several years of continuous native language reading instruction, specifically Spanish. ELL in the primary grades will receive about 90 minutes a day, while students in the intermediate grades receive portions of their reading block in their native language as well as in English. Another factor that influences programming is the actual number of ELL in the district or school. If an elementary school of 300 students is only enrolling a small percentage of ELL, 1% for example, then the type of programming and resources will be limited. The average age of the ELL population also affects program design. Some programs may focus on the primary grades, as described in Minneapolis, if many of the ELL are starting kindergarten in the district. In such cases, the average time a student needs to acquire English proficiency will be four to five years. In other districts, e. g. Farmington Public Schools, older students benefit from classes that offer adult skills such as civics education and work training. Here, the students receive about 45 minutes of this specific type of service per day through a term. With a combination of sheltered and inclusive programming, many older students need more than five years to reach proficiency.

NCLB requires that language instruction educational programs be based on scientific research and proven to be effective. Describe how Title III subgrantees implemented language instruction educational programs that are scientifically based and proven to be effective. [SEC.3115(c)(1) p.1698, SEC. 3123(b)(1) p. 1704, SEC. 9101 (37)]

State response 1.2: (Provide narrative here.)

Minnesota schools commonly adopt the following four program models: pull out ESL, sheltered English instruction, content-based ESL, and Structured English Immersion. As indicated in research, pull out ESL helps those students who need small group attention and intense instruction on various skills. Pre-teaching of concepts and vocabulary help ELL prepare for the mainstream instruction throughout the day. Schools that use this model pull out on average of 30 minutes a day at the elementary level. The amount of pull out time varies depending on the proficiency level of the student. A newcomer to the country who is learning English for the first time will require more intense instruction early on and then will gradually receive less time as he/she makes progress. Pull out programs are in the larger districts such as St. Paul as well as smaller entities like St. James and Tracy. Logistically, the pull out model addresses a few issues that many districts face. For a district with a relatively small number of ELL, an ESL teacher is assigned to two or three schools. Since he/she spends limited time at a site, pull out helps maximize the instruction offered within a day or week.

The Structured English Immersion model is compatible with secondary level scheduling. Within a day, a class period may be 45 minutes or longer. ELL are scheduled into a class period where they receive direct English language instruction. Here, the curriculum focuses on language proficiency standards that prepare ELL for the mainstream.

For an elementary school in Rochester, sheltered English instruction is an add-on kindergarten program designed to address pre and beginning literacy for young learners. With kindergarten only every other day, this model offers language acquisition support during the alternate days.

Over half of the schools/district that receive Title III funds have Newcomer Programs. In recent years, many districts have experienced a huge influx of refugees and newly arrived immigrants from war torn countries or from situations where formal schooling is not available. Newcomers of all ages struggle with adjusting to life in America in addition to meeting the academic expectations of the school system. Newcomer programs, a type of structure English immersion, help ELL learn basic survival skills and prepare them for gradual release into the mainstream.

Approximately 8% of the Title III funding recipients adopts the Sheltered English Instruction model, which allows ELL to build language as they continue to work towards fulfilling their graduation requirements. Mainstream and ESL staffs in St. Cloud Public Schools work together to deliver core curricula. In other instances, bilingual staff assists teachers with classroom instruction by supporting curricular modifications and/or establishing a positive learning environment for students.

In Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District, content-based ESL is present throughout the grades. Because all ELL are mainstreamed for most or parts of the school day, the ESL program strives to include the content that the ELL are being exposed to. The added value of seeing and hearing information more than one time is beneficial. Also, students are not doubly challenged with learning another language and potential additional and/or unrelated content presented by the ESL teacher.

*Comparison between the various models cannot be made due to lack of data at this time.

2. Critical synthesis of data reported by subgrantees

[SEC. 3121(a)(1) p. 1701, 3123(b)(1) p.1704]

Provide a synthesis of data presented in the tables in Section 2. Summarize Title III served LEP students' progress toward meeting Title III AMAOs. [SEC. 3121(a)(1-2) p. 1701]

State response 2.1: (Provide narrative here.)

A total number of 53,138 LEP students were served in districts receiving Title III funds in 2003-04. The students reported in Table 2.2a are the LEP students, who have at least one matched test score in the same district in one of the tests in reading, writing and speaking/listening over the two year period. The total number of matched test scores is reported for each cohort under the performance data for the 2003-04 column. Any increase of test score in any of the tests is defined as progress. Table 2.2a shows that 72.68%, 73.28% and 67.63% of the respective three cohorts make progress in learning English, which puts every cohort above the target.

Table 2.2b reports only the LEP students who were assessed with all three tests (Reading, Writing, Speaking/Listening) and tested the previous year in the same district. The students must score proficient on all three tests in order to be proficient. The table shows that 2.49%, 2.83% and 3.57% of the LEP students of the respective three cohorts attained proficiency in English, which puts every cohort above the target.

Table 2.2a Number and percentage of students* making progress in learning English [SEC. 3121(c)(1)(A) p 1702]

*These numbers reflect the total number of test records. Each ELL may generate up to 3 test records: Reading, Writing, and Speaking/Listening.

**AMAO targets are determined in a manner that doesn’t match the presentation of the table

Table 2.2b Number and percentage of students* attaining English language proficiency [SEC. 3121(c)(1)(A) p 1702]

*Includes only ELL who were assessed in all three assessments (Reading, Writing, Speaking/Listening) and who took one or more of the three assessments in the same district in the previous year.

**AMAO targets are determined in a manner that doesn’t match the presentation of the table.

(Insert an “x” on the appropriate line in the table for the accommodations available to LEP students taking State achievement tests in your State.)

Rivera, C. and C. Stansfield (2000). An analysis of state policies for the inclusion and accommodation of English language learners in state assessment programs during 1998-1999 (Executive Summary). Washington, DC: Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, The George Washington University.

Instructions for Tables 2.3a - 2.3d:

In the following tables, please provide student achievement data from the 2002-03 and 2003-04 test administrations. Responses for other years are deferred until future biennial reports; these columns have been shaded to indicate that no response is needed at this time.

Tables with multiple rows have been provided to accommodate the varied State assessment systems. Data may be provided by grade or by grade span.

Provide data on the number and percentage of Title III served LEP students scoring at the proficient and advanced levels, out of the total number of Title III served LEP students. Provide data for those grades in which the State administered mathematics and reading/language arts assessments during the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years.

These tables include data for Title III served students only, therefore, data required in these tables differ from data submitted to Title I for the LEP subgroup. This is separate reporting specific to Title III served students required by Section 3121(a)(2).

"Projected percent" refers to the State AYP target for the percentage of LEP students projected to score at the proficient and advanced levels on the State achievement assessments.

"Percent of students proficient and advanced" refers to the percent of Title III served LEP students, out of all Title III served LEP students, who scored at the proficient and advanced levels on the State achievement assessments.

(In Tables 2.3a and 2.3b, provide student achievement data for all LEP Title III served students who participated in the State achievement assessments in mathematics and reading/language arts respectively, with or without accommodations, including native language versions of assessments.)

* Two years of test data for grades 3 and 5 and one year of test data for grades 7 and 11 are not sufficient to establish a trend nor to set targets. MDE will set targets for the next biennial report due 2006.

* Two years of test data for grades 3 and 5 and one year of test data for grades 7 and 10 are not sufficient to establish a trend nor to set targets. MDE will set targets for the next biennial report due 2006.

Does your State offer achievement tests in students’ native language(s)?

(Insert an “x” on the appropriate line for response.)

(If no, go to Element 3. If yes, please complete Tables 2.3c and 2.3d. In Table 2.3c, provide student achievement data only for Title III served LEP students who participated in the State achievement assessments in mathematics through native language versions of assessments.)

(In Table 2.3d, provide student achievement data only for Title III served LEP students who participated in the State achievement assessments in reading/language arts through native language versions of assessments.)

Not applicable. Minnesota doesn’t have reading/language arts assessments in languages other than English.

3. Effectiveness of Title III programs and activities in assisting LEP students to make progress in attaining English language proficiency and meeting State academic content and student academic achievement standards

[SEC.3121(b)(2) p.1701, 3123(b)(1) p.1704]

3.1 Provide a summary of the effectiveness of Title III programs and activities in assisting LEP students to meet State English language proficiency annual measurable achievement objectives. [SEC.3121(b)(2) p.1701, 3123(b)(1) p.1704]

(Please fill in the figures (for each year) in the spaces provided.)

State response 3.1: (Provide narrative here. Summarize which programs and activities were effective. Provide evidence of program effectiveness (defined as meeting AMAOs), and any remedies required by the State for those subgrantees that did not achieve the AMAO targets. Identify contributing factors if Title III AMAOs were not met.)

27 of 94 Title III districts met all AMAO targets for every cohort

The 27 districts that met all AMAOs offer a variety of language instruction education programs. Seventeen districts offer ESL Pullout with strong collaboration and consultation with mainstream teachers and other programs that serve the LEP students. Some of these districts also have paraprofessional staff to provide additional support. Six districts offer Sheltered English Instruction, which provide instruction in the content areas in simplified English to ensure comprehension. Three districts offer Structured English Immersion; one district, a Two-Way Immersion; one, a Newcomer Center. About half of the districts meeting AMAOs have at least some students for whom the parents refused ESL services.

67 of 94 Title III districts missed AMAO targets in one or more cohorts.

17 of 67 districts missed one or both content targets (AMAO #3) in Reading/Language Arts and Math but made all goals in English progress and proficiency (AMAO #1 and AMAO #2).

Districts are more likely not to make AMAO #3 in reading/language arts than in math.

3 of 67 districts missed AMAO solely based on progress (AMAO #1).

18 of 67 districts missed AMAO solely based on proficiency (AMAO #2).

29 districts missed AMAO targets in 2 of 3 or all 3 AMAOs.

The State didn’t require districts that did not meet all AMAO targets to submit a plan at this time because this is the first year that these districts did not meet the target. If any of these districts fail to meet the target again at the end of this current school year, they will be asked to submit a plan to rectify the problem.

4. Professional development activities conducted by the State and by subgrantees

[SEC. 3115(c)(1)(B) p. 1698, 3123(b)(5) p. 1705]

4.1 Please provide the number of teachers working in your State's Title III language instruction educational programs in each of the categories below:

[SEC. 3123(b)(5) p.1705]

State response 4.1: (Provide any further explanation needed for the information provided above.)

*Some districts’ staff fluctuate in a given year depending on need and/or enrollment. Therefore, a few districts reported an estimate number such as 2-3 teachers.

**Districts interpreted this item in various manners. Some districts gave their total teacher estimates in five years, while others indicated an average per year increase. Therefore, a rewording of this item is needed in the future to calculate a more accurate projection. Note, the four largest school districts with ELL, which serve approximately 56% of all ELL in MN, reported an estimated 55% of the total number needed in five years.

4.2 How is teacher fluency in English and in any other language used for instruction in Title III programs determined in your State? [SEC. 3116(c) p.1701]

(Insert an “x” on the appropriate line for response for all that apply)

State response 4.2: (Provide narrative if necessary)

Minnesota requires all teachers hold a valid teaching license in the content area in which they teaching. A valid teaching license requires completion of professional training and passing a praxis test. Approved bilingual teacher training programs require future teachers to complete language proficiency requirements.

Districts, which use paraprofessionals to provide instruction in English or a language other than English, are required to demonstrate a process that evaluates the proficiency of those languages.

4.3 Has the State provided professional development activities to assist personnel in meeting State and local certification and licensing requirements for teaching limited English proficient children? [SEC. 3111(b)(2)(A)]

(Insert an “x” on the appropriate line for response)

State response to 4.3: (If yes, please describe the most successful activity and include evidence of the success.)

NA

4.4 What evidence from subgrantees demonstrates that professional development activities met Title III requirements? [SEC. 3115(c)]

Under Title III, professional development activities must be:

based on scientific research, and

effective in enhancing participants’ ability to increase their subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge and skills, and

effective in enhancing participants’ ability to understand and effectively use curricula, effective assessment measures, and effective instructional strategies for LEP students, and

of sufficient intensity and duration to have a lasting impact on teachers’ classroom performance. [SEC. 3115(c)(2)(A-D) p.1698]

State response 4.4: (Please describe the most common approaches used by subgrantees and the effectiveness of these approaches. Address how subgrantees' professional development activities met Title III requirements.)

Staff development is an integral component of any ESL or bilingual program. Title III helps support three main types of staff development opportunities – training that is specifically designed for the ESL team, for all staff, and state, regional, and/or national conferences.

Approximately half of Title III recipients allocate monies to specifically train their ESL staff. In Anoka-Hennepin Schools, which has one of the state’s largest ELL populations, decisions on staff development are based on Marzano’s research in What Works in Schools (2003). He highlights three main components of teacher –level factors that affect student achievement: instructional strategies, classroom management, and classroom curriculum design. ESL teachers are trained in utilizing language assessments. The information learned from the results helps teachers select appropriate strategies to engage the student in the classroom. At the Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy, teachers are trained to access previous knowledge of the ELL and/or recognize what pre-teaching needs to occur prior to a lesson via their partnership with Hamline University. To complement the district’s balanced literacy approach to instruction, ESL teachers have also been trained in such models as Reader’s Workshop. This approach ensures that ELL have the opportunity to select texts that are of interest to them and at their reading level. Teachers focus on universal skills that appear in the varied texts because “in reality their progress is coming from the medium and not the message. Any subject matter that held their interest would do just as well” (Schutz, 2002). Additionally, districts such as Austin are purchasing and/or developing products and services that will enable them to reach out to the communities. Tools such as translation software or interpreting services that promote communication with families require adequate training.

Administrators and teachers alike know that the success of a student depend on the entire staff. Therefore, 79% of Title III recipients sponsor staff development that is designed to include all teachers and support personnel. North St. Paul Public Schools highlights effective communication skills and cultural awareness within the buildings in their sessions. St. Louis Park sponsors staff to participate in Peggy McIntosh and Emily Style’s Seeking Education Equity and Diversity (SEED) training encourages staff to reflect on issues such as gender and cultural biases. By doing so, empathy and other affective practice may be translated to positive interactions with others including those in the ELL community. Plus, MN River Valley offers their ESL teachers workshops that focus on the educational needs of ELL, current policies and procedures, and best practices. Farmington staff participated in a district-wide data review process where teachers were allowed to examine and identify areas of learning that ELL need to improve on in order to become proficient. Input and output from the ELL can also be modified according to each student’s level of proficiency.

Finally, 95% of Title III districts send teachers and support staff to state, regional, and/or national conferences. MinneTESOL (Minnesota Teachers of English to Students of Other Languages), MASBO (Minnesota Association of School Business Officials), AFT (American Federation of Teachers), and the Minnesota ESL, Bilingual, & Migrant Education Conference offer a variety of sessions that promote student learning/achievement and ELL related issues.

5. Description of State level activities conducted and technical assistance provided to subgrantees [SEC. 3111(b)(2)(C-D))(c), reference CSA item 8c]

State response 5.1: (Describe the outcomes of the technical assistance provided, including which activities were effective, how effectiveness was measured, and why the activities were effective.)

Technical assistance was provided in a variety of ways, including grant writing training workshops, ELL coordinators meetings, ESL/Bilingual Statewide conference and other conferences such as MASBO (Minnesota Association of School Business Officials), MAASFEP (Minnesota Association for Administrators of State and Federal Education Programs), CARLA (Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition), and University of Minnesota sponsored events. In addition, technical assistance is offered to districts upon request through email, telephone and on site training.

The most effective method of technical assistance in identifying and implementing instructional programs and curricula for ELL based on scientific research is through the grant writing training workshops in the spring of each year when the training is done in collaboration with all Title programs. It is most effective when the districts are presented with the big picture of NCLB legislative intent and how the NCLB Title programs relate and support one another in addressing the needs of its students through coordination and collaboration. Further, the training was even more effective in addressing individual program requirements by organizing concurrent sessions by program type, which allows the districts to choose the sessions that apply to their districts. Consultation time is also available to those districts that need additional technical assistance at the end of the day. Training evaluation was conducted at the end of the training where the participants were asked to give feedback on the effectiveness of the training.

Further, technical assistance was most effective when conducted in partnership with other agencies or programs that serve the same target population in helping LEP students meet academic content and student academic achievement standards expected of all students, and promoting parental and community participation in programs that serve LEP children.

Training activities for identifying or developing and implementing measures of English language proficiency were most effective in the form of workshops or training sessions designed specifically for coordinators and personnel working in ELL programs. The training is effective when the information is presented to a group of program people who have rich ideas and experiences to share with one another. The effectiveness is evidenced by having a greater number of districts implementing appropriate language proficiency measures in the identification and placement process for their ELL population.

5.2 What other State activities have been conducted during the two preceding fiscal years? (Activities contained in the CSA item 8c)

(Insert an “x” on the appropriate line for response for all that apply)

State response 5.2: (Describe the outcomes of the activities checked, including which activities were effective, how effectiveness was measured, and why the activities were effective.)

Planning and administration activities are most effective when conducted at the district level during site visits at the district’s request. It is effective when the training is tailored to a specific district and done at the site where the key players in the district are involved as a team and all available resources are being considered in the process. The implementation of the plan is evidence of the training.

5.3 Describe how the State ensured that subgrantees met parental notification and parental participation requirements under Section 3302. Describe how the State ensured that subgrantees:

complied with parental notification provisions for identification and placement and for not meeting Title III AMAOs. [SEC. 3302(a)(8) p. 1732, SEC. 3302(b) p. 1732]

provided parental notifications in an understandable and uniform format, and, to the extent practical, in a language that the parent can understand. [SEC. 3302(c) p. 1732-3]

complied with parental participation and outreach provisions. [SEC. 3302(e) p. 1732-3]

State response 5.3: (Address each of the above bulleted items.)

MDE informs Title III funded districts about the Title III requirement for parental notification through participation and outreach at grant writing workshops, statewide ESL/Bilingual conferences, ELL coordinators workshops held throughout the year. The requirements are also outlined in the publication “ELL Education Program Guidelines for Serving ELL.” In addition, the ELL Education Program of MDE periodically reminds the districts through its listserv of parent notification requirements.

The notification letters are available in English and five additional languages. They are posted, with instructions, on the MDE website.

When MDE reports on districts which have not met AMAO (projected for March 2005), letter templates will be posted to the website and districts not making AMAO will be asked to file a copy of their parent notification letter with MDE.

Responses for 5.4 and 5.5 are deferred until the second biennial report due 2006

5.4 Were any subgrantees required to develop an improvement plan under Title III, because they did not meet the Title III annual measurable achievement objectives for two consecutive years? [SEC. 3122(b)(2) p.1703] (Insert an “x” on the appropriate line for response)

State response 5.4: (If yes, explain the State plan to provide technical assistance towards changing this status. If no, proceed to the next item.)

5.5 Did the State conduct or sponsor any scientifically based research studies on teaching English to LEP children, or on improving the English language proficiency and academic achievement of LEP children? [SEC. 3123(b)(6) p. 1705] (Insert an “x” on the appropriate line for response)

State response 5.5: (If yes, provide a summary of the major findings of such studies. If no proceed to the next item.)

6. Number of programs or activities that were terminated for failure to reach program goals [SEC. 3123(b)(7) p.1705]

6.1 During the two preceding fiscal years, were any subgrantee programs or activities terminated for failure to reach program goals? (Insert an “x” on the appropriate line for response)

State response 6.1: (If yes, fill in the figure below, and provide a summary explaining why these programs or activities did not reach program goals. If no proceed to the next item.)

7. Number of LEP students transitioned out of language instruction educational programs into classrooms where instruction is not designed for LEP students

[SEC. 3121(a)(4) p.1701]

7.During the two preceding fiscal years, have Title III served LEP students transitioned into classrooms where instruction is not designed for LEP students? (Insert an “x” on the appropriate line for response)

(If yes, complete Table 7.1. If no, provide an explanation in the “state response.”)

Table 7.1 Number and percentage of Title III LEP students transitioned into classrooms where instruction is not designed for LEP students (Indicate the number and percentage of students who have achieved the proficient level on the State-selected English language proficiency assessment, and who are no longer receiving Title III services.)

State response 7.1:

*Transitioned students are defined for tables 7.1, 7.2.a, and 7.2b as those students who are not LEP in the current year but were LEP in one or both of the previous two years. To demonstrate proficiency, LEP students must score proficient on a set of three ELP assessments in one or both of the preceding years. However, not all three ELP assessments were in use during this three-year period. MDE will be able to report this information in full in the next biennial evaluation report.

7.2 Demonstrate through data in Tables 7.2a - 7.2.b monitored LEP students who transitioned into classrooms not designed for LEP students, and who are no longer receiving services under Title III met the State adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets in math and reading/language arts required under Title I.