2 years post-exit “monitoring” period.

When English learners (ELs) meet the language assessment criteria to be considered English proficient, they are no longer eligible for EL status, and thus they are not eligible for English language services nor the annual English language assessment. United States Department of Education (USED) and Office for Civil Rights (OCR) call these English-proficient students “Former ELs”. 


Former ELs are reported (coded) to the state in SIS as “EL” but with a number representing which “post-exit” year they are in. In Data Collections, an EL = ‘No’ student is one who has never been identified as an EL.

  • EL = ‘1’ – 1st year post-exit
  • EL = ‘2’– 2nd year post-exit
  • EL = ‘3’– 3rd year post-exit
  • EL = ‘4’– 4th year post-exit
  • EL – ‘F’ (Finished or completely ‘former” ELs – no longer monitored, no longer in the accountability subgroup, no longer eligible for testing accommodations)


Schools have a legal obligation to check on the academic progress of former EL students for two years post-exit, maintaining documentation of such in the student’s files. That is called the “EL monitoring” period and schools must ensure the student was not exited prematurely from language services. Former ELs in their 1st and 2nd year post-exit (the monitoring period) can receive assessment accommodations on Milestones.


For accountability purposes, per ESEA statute (since 2017), the N=size for the EL subgroup (CCRPI Closing the Gaps and Academic Achievement) includes all EL = ‘Yes’ students and all former EL students up to four years post-exit. That’s why we code students ‘1’ – ‘4’. But schools are not required to monitor student’s academic progress in years 3 and 4 – just the state through the accountability system.


In GO-IEP, continue to use EL = YES for

  • EL = ‘1’ – 1st year post-exit
  • EL = ‘2’– 2nd year post-exit


The false ESOL delivery model called “monitoring”.

Unfortunately, an urban myth surfaced many years ago that EL/SWD did not need to be served by the ESOL specialist using one of the ESOL delivery models, but rather, by the SPED staff instead and the ESOL teacher would just check-in with the SPED teacher to see how the EL student was doing. This was informally called a “monitoring” delivery model although it didn’t earn the school any FTE. This system was under-girded by the false assumption that the “SPED program services trump ESOL program services”, and issues scheduling EL/SWD would always defer to the SPED program.