No Child Left Behind Act: Education's Data Improvement Efforts
Could Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds
(07-DEC-06, GAO-07-140).
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA)
designates federal funds to support the education of students
with limited English proficiency and provides for formula-based
grants to states. This report describes the data the Education
Department used to distribute Title III funds and the
implications of data measurement issues for the two allowable
sources of data-- American Community Survey (ACS) and state
assessment data--for allocating funds across states. In addition,
the report describes changes in federal funding to support these
students under NCLBA and how states and school districts used
these funds as well as Education's Title III oversight and
support to states. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed
documentation on ACS and state data, interviewed federal and
state officials, and collected data from 12 states, 11 districts,
and 6 schools.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-140
ACCNO: A63946
TITLE: No Child Left Behind Act: Education's Data Improvement
Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III
Funds
DATE: 12/07/2006
SUBJECT: Bilingual education
Data collection
Data integrity
Education
Education program evaluation
Federal aid to states
Federal funds
Federal/state relations
Immigrants
School districts
Schools
Statistical data
Students
Executive agency oversight
Non English speaking
Census Bureau American Community Survey
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-140
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]Distribution of Title III Funds
* [4]School Districts' Uses of Title III Funds
* [5]American Community Survey
* [6]State Data (Number of Students with Limited English Proficie
* [7]Oversight
* [8]Education Used Census' ACS Data to Distribute Title III Fund
* [9]Education Used ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds across
* [10]The Allowable State Data and the ACS Data Differ in What The
* [11]Some States Could Receive More Funding While Others Could Re
* [12]Under NCLBA, Federal Funding for Students with Limited Engli
* [13]Funding for Students with Limited English Proficiency and Im
* [14]More School Districts Received Funds for Students with Limit
* [15]States and School Districts Used Title III Funds to Support
* [16]Title III Funds Supported Various Programs and Activities, I
* [17]Some States and School Districts Cited Challenges in Recruit
* [18]Education Provided Oversight and Support to Help States Meet
* [19]Conclusions
* [20]Recommendations
* [21]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [22]GAO Contacts
* [23]Staff Acknowledgments
* [24]GAO's Mission
* [25]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [26]Order by Mail or Phone
* [27]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [28]Congressional Relations
* [29]Public Affairs
Report to Congressional Requesters
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
December 2006
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT
Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for
Distributing Title III Funds
GAO-07-140
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3
Background 6
Education Used Census' ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds Because
State Data Were Incomplete and Data Measurement Issues Could Result in
Funding Differences across States 11
Under NCLBA, Federal Funding for Students with Limited English Proficiency
and Immigrant Children and Youth Has Increased, and More School Districts
Are Receiving Funds 27
States and School Districts Used Title III Funds to Support Programs for
Students with Limited English Proficiency, but Some Cited Challenges
Recruiting Highly Qualified Staff 31
Education Provided Oversight and Support to Help States Meet Title III
Requirements 36
Conclusions 38
Recommendations 39
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 40
Appendix I Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language Instruction
42
Appendix II Language Instruction Educational Programs Used by States in
School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 44
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Education 48
Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments 51
Tables
Table 1: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Students with
Limited English Proficiency 14
Table 2: Volatility in ACS Data 17
Table 3: Allocation of Title III Funds for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 20
Table 4: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Immigrant
Children and Youth 23
Table 5: Number of States, Including the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds to Support Different Types of
Language Instruction Programs 32
Table 6: Number of States, including the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds for Various State-Level
Activities 34
Table 7: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language Instruction 42
Figures
Figure 1: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (State Data)
15
Figure 2: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (ACS) 16
Figure 3: Percentage Differences between School Year 2004-05
State-Reported Data and 2004 ACS Data in 12 Study States 22
Figure 4: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based on
a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2005) 25
Figure 5: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based on
a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2006) 26
Figure 6: Appropriations for Programs to Support Students with Limited
English Proficiency Fiscal Years 2001-06 28
Figure 7: Distribution of Title VII and Title III Funds Provided to States
in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006 29
Abbreviations
ACS American Community Survey
ESL English as a second language
ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages
NCELA National Clearinghouse of English Language Acquisition
NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
December 7, 2006
The Honorable George Miller Ranking Minority Member Committee on Education
and the Workforce House of Representatives
The Honorable Ruben Hinojosa Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
Select Education Committee on Education and the Workforce House of
Representatives
The Honorable Lynn Woolsey Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
Education Reform Committee on Education and the Workforce House of
Representatives
The Honorable Raul Grijalva House of Representatives
An estimated 5 million students with limited English proficiency were
enrolled in the nation's public schools in the 2003-04 school year, and
this population has been growing. Title III of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLBA) designates federal funds to support the education of
students with limited English proficiency. We addressed how states can
better measure the progress of these students in our July 2006 report.^1
NCLBA, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
provides for formula-based grants to states, replacing the discretionary
grants authorized under Title VII of the Improving America's Schools Act
of 1994. In particular, under NCLBA, the Secretary of Education is
required to base the distribution of funds on the more accurate of two
allowable sources of data on the population of children and youth with
limited English proficiency and immigrants: the Bureau of the Census'
(Census) American Community Survey (ACS) data or state-collected data.
However, questions have been raised about data measurement issues, such as
what the data are designed to measure and how that measurement occurs,
that affect the data the Department of Education (Education) can use to
distribute Title III funds. Congress is interested in the implications of
using each of the two data sources to distribute these funds as well as
other issues related to serving students with limited English proficiency.
In response to congressional interest we agreed to answer the following
questions: 1) What data does Education use to distribute Title III funds
and what are the implications of data measurement issues for the two
allowable sources of data for allocating funds across states? 2) How have
the level and distribution of federal funds to support students with
limited English proficiency changed under NCLBA? 3) How do states and
school districts use Title III funds? 4) How has Education provided
oversight and support to help states meet Title III requirements?
^1 GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help
States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English
Proficiency, [30]GAO-06-815 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006).
In doing our work we used a variety of methodological approaches. To
address how data measurement issues affect the distribution of Title III
funds to states and to determine the implications of these issues, we
reviewed documentation and literature about ACS data, including prior GAO
reports, and interviewed Census officials knowledgeable about ACS. We also
analyzed information in 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports and
Consolidated State Performance Reports for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school
years--the most recent years for which these reports were available--for
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We analyzed the
data that states reported related to the number of students with limited
English proficiency and recent immigrant students. We selected 12 states
and collected data related to students with limited English proficiency
and those students classified as recent immigrants. To assess the
reliability of state data, we interviewed knowledgeable state officials
about data quality control procedures and potential limitations of these
data and data systems. We also reviewed relevant documents. We determined
that the data obtained from these states related to students with limited
English proficiency were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. The
selected states have large or growing populations of these students, are
geographically diverse, and represent more than 75 percent of both Title
III funding and the population of students with limited English
proficiency. We visited 6 of the 12 states--Arizona, California, Florida,
Illinois, Nevada, and Texas--and called officials in the other 6
states--Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and
Washington. We simulated the distribution of Title III funds to the 12
states based on state-reported data and compared the results to the actual
distribution for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years. To address the
second and third questions, we used information from the states' Biennial
Evaluation Reports, including information on the number of subgrantees
receiving Title III funds in each state and how states used Title III
funds. We also gathered in-depth information on funding and programs that
support students with limited English proficiency from the12 study states.
We reviewed Education documents and interviewed Education officials,
including officials from the Office of English Language Acquisition, the
Office of Budget Service, and the National Center for Education
Statistics, to obtain information about funding distribution and
Education's support to states. In addition, we met with officials in 11
school districts and 1 school in each of these districts to collect
in-depth information on how funds were used in the 6 states we visited.
Finally, to complete the answer to the question relevant to Education's
oversight and support, we reviewed the guidance Education has issued on
Title III and analyzed Education's 21 Title III monitoring reports
completed as of September 30 and states' responses to these reports as
available. We also interviewed state officials in our 12 study states. We
conducted our work from December 2005 to September 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funding across states;
however, Education has not developed a methodology to determine the more
accurate of the two allowable data sources, and measurement issues in
either allowable source could affect the amount of funding each state
receives. Some states provided incomplete data and others provided
inconsistent data to Education on the number of students with limited
English proficiency in the Consolidated State Performance Reports, in
part, because of unclear instructions. Education officials told us that
their ongoing reviews of state data and preliminary plans to clarify some
report instructions should improve these data. Education officials also
told us they used ACS data primarily because the state data were
incomplete. However, Education officials told us they have not established
criteria or a methodology to evaluate the relative accuracy of the two
data sources once the state data are complete. ACS and state data each
measure different populations in distinct ways, and it is unclear how well
either of the two data sources captures the population of children with
limited English proficiency. With respect to state data, differences in
how states identify which students have limited English proficiency could
affect the numbers states report to Education and could ultimately affect
the distribution of Title III funds. ACS data present challenges as well.
For example, responses to subjective English ability questions on the ACS
survey showed some inconsistency when Census officials re-interviewed
respondents. In addition, the ACS data showed large increases and
decreases in the numbers of students with limited English proficiency from
2003 to 2004. Some of these fluctuations could be due to sampling error.
Our simulation of the distribution of Title III funds for 12 study states
for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 using both ACS data and state-collected
counts of students with limited English proficiency showed that in each
year there would be differences in how much funding each of the 12 study
states would receive.
An increase in funding as well as a change in how funds are distributed
contributed to more school districts receiving federal funding to support
students with limited English proficiency since the enactment of NCLBA. In
fiscal year 2006, Congress authorized and Education provided over $650
million to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico,
mostly through formula grants for programs that support students with
limited English proficiency. This authorization represented an increase of
more than $200 million from fiscal year 2001, the last year Education made
discretionary grants for similar purposes under Title VII of the Improving
America's Schools Act. Under the Title III formula grant program in fiscal
year 2006, the funds were distributed based primarily on the number of
students with limited English proficiency. As a result of the change to a
formula grant, more school districts received funds under Title III than
under Title VII. For example, in three of our study states (California,
Texas, and Illinois) more than 1,900 school districts received Title III
funds in the 2003-04 school year, compared to about 500 school districts
(including districts with schools that received Title VII grants) that
received Title VII funding in fiscal year 2001.
States and school districts reported using Title III funds to support
programs and activities including language instruction and professional
development as well as to support activities for immigrant children and
youth, but some study states and school districts cited challenges in
recruiting qualified staff. All states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico reported that school districts receiving Title III funds
provided a variety of language instruction programs. They also reported
that school districts conducted professional development activities for
teachers or other personnel, such as workshops on effective teaching
strategies for students with limited English proficiency. Forty-six
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported that school
districts conducted activities to support immigrant children and youth,
such as providing tutorials, mentoring, or parent outreach. Similarly, in
the 12 study states and 11 school districts we visited in 6 of these
states, Title III funds were used to support a variety of programs and
activities for students with limited English proficiency, such as
professional development, tutoring, and parent outreach. According to
state Biennial Evaluation Reports, the majority of states provided
professional development to help teachers and other staff meet state and
local certification and licensing requirements for teaching students with
limited English proficiency. However, officials in some study states
identified challenges recruiting qualified staff. Specifically, officials
in 5 of the 12 study states and 8 school districts we visited noted that
difficulty hiring qualified teachers or other personnel who meet NCLBA
requirements presented challenges to implementing effective programs.
Education provided states oversight, such as Title III-monitoring visits,
and a variety of support, such as providing technical assistance and
guidance through annual conferences and Web casts, to help states meet
Title III requirements. Officials from 5 of the 12 study states reported
general satisfaction with the support Education provided. One area that
officials from seven of the study states identified as difficult was how
to address the needs of those students having both limited English
proficiency and disabilities, such as those with the most significant
cognitive disabilities. An Education official stated that there is limited
research on approaches for addressing this group, but Education is working
with states and experts to explore the appropriate identification,
assessment, placement, and interventions for such students. In addition,
officials in 5 of the 12 states thought more guidance was needed on
developing English language proficiency assessments that meet NCLBA's
requirements. In our July 2006 report, we recommended that Education
identify and provide technical support that states need to ensure the
validity of academic assessments and publish additional guidance on
requirements for assessing English language proficiency, among other
things. Education agreed with our recommendations and has begun to
identify the additional technical assistance needs of states and ways to
provide additional guidance in these areas.
To address issues related to Title III allocation, we recommended that
Education (1) include clear instructions about how to provide correct and
complete state data on the number of students with limited English
proficiency assessed annually for proficiency in English; (2) develop and
implement a transparent methodology for determining the relative accuracy
of the two allowable sources of data--ACS or state data on the number of
students with limited English proficiency assessed annually--for Title III
allocations to states; and (3) seek authority to use statistical
methodologies to reduce the volatility associated with the ACS data. In
comments, Education generally agreed with our recommendations.
Background
Since the 1960's, the federal government has provided resources to support
the education of students with limited English proficiency. Federal
funding has supported school districts, colleges and universities, and
research centers to assist students in attaining English proficiency and
in meeting academic standards. In addition to federal funding, state and
local agencies provide significant funding to support the education of
these students. The evolving educational standards movement and NCLBA have
reshaped how the federal government views and supports programs for
elementary and secondary school students whose native language is not
English.
Prior to Title III of NCLBA, federal funding provided under Title VII of
the Improving America's Schools Act supported services for students with
limited English proficiency. Both Title III and Title VII were designed to
target students with limited English proficiency, including immigrant
children and youth, supporting these students in attaining English
proficiency and meeting the same academic content standards all students
are expected to meet.^2 However, Title III differs from Title VII in terms
of funding methods and requirements for academic standards and English
language proficiency standards and assessments. In particular, Title III
provides for formula-based grants whereas Title VII provided funds
primarily through discretionary grants. Title III also requires states to
have English language proficiency standards that are aligned with the
state academic content standards, in addition to annually assessing the
English language proficiency of students having limited English
proficiency. GAO reported on the academic achievement of these students
and the validity and reliability of assessments used to measure their
performance. We recommended that Education undertake a variety of
activities to help states better measure the progress of these students
under NCLBA.^3
Title VII authorized various discretionary grants to eligible states,
school districts, institutions of higher education, or community-based
organizations to, among other things, assist with the development of
instructional programs for students with limited English proficiency.
Under Title VII, colleges and universities also could apply for grants to
provide professional development programs on instructional and assessment
methodologies and strategies as well as resources specific to limited
English proficient students for teachers and other staff providing
services to these students. Title VII also required that funds be set
aside for the establishment and operation of a national clearinghouse for
information on programs for students with limited English proficiency. In
addition, Title VII offered a formula grant program to support enhanced
instructional opportunities in school districts that experienced
unexpectedly large increases in their immigrant student population. States
with districts that had large numbers or percentages of immigrant students
were eligible to receive funds under this program.
^2 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002)) and
the Improving America's Schools Act (Pub. L. No. 103-382 (1994)) amended
and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
^3 [31]GAO-06-815 .
Distribution of Title III Funds
In contrast to Title VII, Title III of NCLBA requires Education to
allocate funds to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico^4 based on a formula incorporating the population of children with
limited English proficiency and the population of immigrant children and
youth in each state (relative to national counts of these populations).
Specifically, funds are to be distributed to states as follows
o 80 percent based on the population of children with limited
English proficiency, and
o 20 percent based on the population of recently immigrated
children and youth (relative to national counts of these
populations).^5
NCLBA provides that Education is to determine the number of children with
limited English proficiency and immigrant children and youth using the
more accurate of two data sources: the number of students with limited
English proficiency who are assessed under NCLBA for English
proficiency,^6 or data from ACS, which is based on responses to a series
of relevant questions.^7
4 The total amount of Title III funding allotted to Puerto Rico is not to
exceed 0.5 percent of the total amount allotted to all states in a fiscal
year.
^5 NCLBA defines immigrant children and youth to mean individuals aged 3
to 21 who were not born in the United States and who have not been
attending school in the U.S. for more than 3 full academic years.
Hereinafter the term "recently immigrated children and youth" will refer
to this population.
Education allocates these funds after making certain reservations. For
example, each fiscal year Education must reserve 0.5 percent or $5
million, whichever is greater, for providing grants to schools and other
eligible entities that support language instruction educational projects
for Native American children (including Alaska Native children) with
limited English proficiency. Also, a reservation of 6.5 percent is made to
support activities including the National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs^8 and
to provide grants for professional development to improve educational
services for children with limited English proficiency.^9 Institutions of
higher education in consortia with school districts or state educational
agencies may apply for these discretionary grants.
Once states receive Title III funds from Education, they are allowed to
set aside up to 5 percent of these funds for certain state-level
activities, including administration. In addition, Title III requires each
state to use up to 15 percent of its formula grant to award subgrants to
its school districts with significant increases in school enrollment of
immigrant children and youth, before distributing the remainder across
school districts in proportion to the number of students with limited
English proficiency.
^6 Under section 1111(b)(7) of NCLBA, all students with limited English
proficiency are required to be assessed annually for English proficiency
(across three domains: oral language, reading, and writing). Since all
students with limited English proficiency are to be assessed, the number
of those assessed should be reasonably close to the number of students
identified as having limited English proficiency.
^7 NCLBA directed Education to base the distribution of funding on Census
data or data submitted by states for the first 2 years after the passage
of NCLBA.
^8 The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and
Language Instruction Educational Programs collects, analyzes, synthesizes,
and disseminates information about language instruction educational
programs for children with limited English proficiency. (See
[32]http://www.ncela.gwu.edu , downloaded Sept. 22, 2006.)
^9 Funding is also reserved for continuation awards to recipients who
received multiple year grants and fellowships under Title VII for the
complete period of the grant or fellowship.
School Districts' Uses of Title III Funds
School districts are required to use Title III funds to provide
scientifically based language instruction programs for students with
limited English proficiency^10 and to provide professional development to
teachers or other personnel.^11 School districts may also use Title III
funds for other purposes, including
o to develop and implement language instruction programs for such
students;
o to upgrade program objectives and instruction strategies,
curricula, educational software, and assessment procedures for
such students;
o to provide tutorials or intensified instruction for these
students;
o to provide community participation programs, family literacy
services, and parent outreach for these students and their
families;
o to acquire educational technology or instructional materials;
and
o to provide access to electronic networks for materials,
training, and communication.
School districts that receive funds because they have experienced
substantial increases in immigrant children and youth are to use these
funds for activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities for
these students. Such activities may include family literacy programs
designed to assist parents in becoming active participants in the
education of their children; services such as tutoring, mentoring, and
academic or career counseling for these students; support for teacher
aides trained specifically for working with these students; the
acquisition of instructional materials or software; and programs designed
to introduce these students to the educational system.
American Community Survey
An Office of Management and Budget-sponsored interagency committee,
including Education, exists to determine questions to be included on the
ACS and decennial census. Education's National Center for Education
Statistics represented the department in the determination of the
questions used by Census. The current language questions were developed
for the 1980 census to obtain information needed about current language
use and limited English language proficiency as a result of legislation
such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Bilingual Education Act, and the
Voting Rights Act. These questions remain in their original form and have
not been modified since the passage of NCLBA.
^10 Language instruction programs used by districts include both English
as a Second Language (ESL), an approach that typically involves little or
no use of the native language, and bilingual education, which may use and
promote two languages. Appendix I provides additional information on
different types of ESL and bilingual education programs.
^11 NCLBA states that this professional development should be designed to
improve the instruction and assessment of students with limited English
proficiency and to enhance the ability of teachers to use curricula
assessment measures and instruction strategies for these students. It also
states that activities should be of sufficient intensity and duration to
have a positive and lasting impact on teacher performance.
State Data (Number of Students with Limited English Proficiency Assessed)
The other data source specified by NCLBA as a potential basis for the
distribution of Title III funding--the number of students with limited
English proficiency who are assessed annually for proficiency in
English--would generally come from the states. States report the number of
students assessed to Education in their Consolidated State Performance
Reports. States are to report the number of these students served by Title
III who are assessed annually for proficiency in English in the state
Biennial Evaluation Reports to Education.
Oversight
Education has responsibility for general oversight under Title III of
NCLBA, including providing guidance and technical assistance, monitoring,
and reporting information to Congress on students with limited English
proficiency based on data collected in the Consolidated State Performance
Reports and Biennial Evaluation Reports. Education reviews state plans,
which all states have submitted. These plans, as required by Title III,
outline the process that the state will use in making subgrants to
eligible entities and provide evidence that districts conduct annual
assessments for English proficiency that meet the law's requirements,
along with other information. By June 2003, Education had reviewed and
approved all state plans; Education has since reviewed and approved many
plan amendments submitted by states.
Education Used Census' ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds Because State Data
Were Incomplete and Data Measurement Issues Could Result in Funding Differences
across States
Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funds across states
although measurement issues with ACS and state-reported data could affect
the amount of funding that each state receives. Education has not
developed a methodology to determine the more accurate of the allowable
data once state data are complete. The two data sources differ in what
they measure and how that measurement occurs. These differences between
the data sources have implications for funding levels--some states could
receive more funding while others could receive less depending on which
data source Education uses.
Education Used ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds across States, but Has Not
Developed a Methodology to Determine the More Accurate of the Allowable
Data--State Data or ACS Data
Education based the distribution of Title III funding across states on
Census' ACS data for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. In both years, Education
used these data to determine the number of children and youth with limited
English proficiency as well as the number of children and youth who were
recent immigrants. Prior to fiscal year 2005, Education used Census 2000
data for the number of children and youth with limited English proficiency
and relied on state-reported data for the number of recent immigrants.^12
Education officials determined that the ACS data were more accurate than
state data--primarily because the state data provided in the Consolidated
State Performance Reports on the number of students with limited English
proficiency who were assessed for English proficiency across three
dimensions (reading, writing, and oral) were incomplete. Education
officials explained that not all states provided these data for school
year 2004-05, and some provided data that included only partial counts of
students.^13 For example according to Education, some states, such as
California and Texas, did not assess all students with limited English
proficiency.^14 Education officials told us that the lack of complete
state data was, in part, due to the time needed to establish academic
standards and align English language proficiency assessments to those
standards and collect the related data.
^12 In fiscal year 2004, Education sought and received authority to
continue to use Census data beyond the 2-year time frame set forth in
NCLBA. Education officials told us that the pilot ACS data available for
the fiscal year 2004 distribution of funds were not suitable to be used as
the basis of Title III-funding distribution due to limitations of the
sample size used.
Education officials also explained that some states provided inconsistent
data on the number of students with limited English proficiency who were
assessed for English proficiency in the Consolidated State Performance
Reports because instructions for providing this information did not
include definitions of the data to be collected. Similarly, we found that
these instructions could be interpreted to ask for different data
elements. For example, it was unclear whether states should provide the
number of students screened for English proficiency, the number of
students who were already identified as limited English proficient who
were then assessed for their proficiency or a combination of the two
numbers. Further it was not clear whether or not states were to provide an
unduplicated count--as some states use more than one assessment to
evaluate a student's mastery of the various dimensions of English
proficiency (reading, writing, and oral). Such students may be reported
more than once. As a result, some states included duplicate counts of
students, and in other states, these data included other student counts
(based on screening of new students rather than assessments of already
identified students as specified in the law). In September 2006, Education
officials told us that they plan to modify the instructions for providing
these data in the Consolidated State Performance Report for school year
2006-07 data that is to be submitted in December of 2007. However, the
officials did not have a copy of a plan or proposed modifications.
During the time of our engagement, Education was in the process of
reviewing state data and providing feedback to the states based on both
school year 2003-04 and 2004-05 Consolidated State Performance Report
data. Education performed this effort in part to improve the quality of
state data entered into Education's national data system. This effort
included comparing recent data to data provided in previous years and
incorporating data edits and checks to guide state officials as they
entered relevant data electronically. Education officials told us that
they expect this review along with feedback to the states to result in
improved data for school year 2005-06 and beyond. They also told us that
they believe their efforts to address state data quality, including
clarifying Consolidated State Performance Report instructions and
reviewing state-provided data, will result in improved information on the
number of students with limited English proficiency who were assessed for
English proficiency.
^13 Education relied on their contractor's analysis of the Consolidated
State Performance Report data related to students with limited English
proficiency and thus did not have a state-by-state analysis of the number
of states that did not provide data on the number of students with limited
English proficiency who were assessed for English proficiency or those
states that provided partial data for school year 2004-05.
^14 In such cases the number of students identified as having limited
English proficiency--which is the number we use in our analyses in this
report--could be greater than the number of students assessed annually for
English proficiency.
While Education officials expected that their efforts would improve the
quality of the data, they told us that they had not established criteria
or a methodology to determine the relative accuracy of the two data
sources. Education officials stated that as the state data improve and
become complete, complex analysis will be needed to determine the relative
accuracy of these data and the ACS data.
The Allowable State Data and the ACS Data Differ in What They Measure and How
That Measurement Occurs
The two allowable sources of data measure fundamentally different
populations. The state data specified in NCLBA are to represent those
students with limited English proficiency who are assessed annually for
proficiency. In contrast, the ACS data that Education uses to represent
students with limited English proficiency are based on self-reported
survey responses to particular questions of a sample of the population.
Table 1 compares different characteristics of these data, including what
they measure and how.
Table 1: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Students with
Limited English Proficiency
State data on students with limited
English proficiency^b
ACS data used to Number
represent the number identified as
of students with Number assessed limited
limited English annually for English English
Feature proficiency^a proficiency proficient
Measures Number of persons ages Number of students with Number of
provided 5 to 21 who speak a limited English students
language other than proficiency in grades identified as
English at home and K-12 who are assessed limited
report speaking for English English
English less than proficiency. proficient in
"very well". grades K-12.
How it is Self report (sample of State Varies across
measured population). Collected developed/approved states,
by Census Bureau. assessments. Collected includes a
by state and local Home Language
officials. Survey.
Collected by
state and
local
officials.
Timing Annual average of Varies; usually in Varies:
monthly sample. spring. cumulative
count,
average, one
time snapshot.
Purpose To comply with Voting NCLBA requirement to To identify
Rights Act, Older track the progress to children who
Americans Act, and proficiency in English need to be
NCLBA requirements. of identified students. offered
services.
To provide information NCLBA provision as
to serve the needs of allowable data source
the foreign-born and for Title III
those with limited allocation.
English proficiency.
Education's Work with Census to Has required states to Has required
role in data make sure appropriate assess students states to
collection questions are annually. collect and
included. report these
Has not yet data.
Can propose new specifically compiled
questions, if complete information on
necessary. the number of students
assessed.
Source: Census, Education, and data obtained by Education from ACS.
aThis column refers to data obtained by Education from ACS, but ACS
collects additional data.
^bSome states may have data available for children prior to kindergarten.
NCLBA requires that all students with limited English proficiency are
assessed annually for proficiency in English. However, states have
different methods of identifying which students have limited English
proficiency (see fig. 1). These varied methods, along with any differences
in interpreting student performance on such screenings, could result in a
lack of uniformity in the population identified as having limited English
proficiency. States generally employ home language surveys--questionnaires
asking what languages are spoken at home--to determine which students
should be screened for English proficiency. However, beyond the home
language survey, methodologies for determining a student's English
proficiency vary. States use different screening instruments, and even
within a state, there could be variation in the instruments used. In
addition, some states and school districts may implement other
methods--such as subjective teacher observation reports--in determining a
student's language proficiency. Regardless of how states determine which
students have limited English proficiency and need language services, they
are required to offer services and assess the progress of all such
students.
Figure 1: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (State Data)
aA home language survey is a survey asking questions about what language
the child speaks (other than English) at home.
The ACS data used by Education to represent the number of students with
limited English proficiency are based on a sample of the population. In
particular, these data represent the number of persons ages 5 to 21 who
speak a language other than English in the home and who report speaking
English less than "very well" (see fig. 2). The responses to the question
regarding how well members of the respondent's household speak English are
subjective. The Census Bureau has found some inconsistency with these
responses in its re-interview process, which is a data quality check.^15
Figure 2: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (ACS)
It is not known how accurately the ACS data reflect the population of
students with limited English proficiency. According to Census officials,
no research exists on the linkage between the responses to the ACS English
ability questions and the identification of students with limited English
proficiency.^16 Because ACS data are used as the basis of Title
III-funding distribution, it is critical to understand how accurately
these data represent the population and whether they do so uniformly
across states.
^15 See Paula Schneider, Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and
Evaluation Program, Topic Report No. 12 , TR-12, Content and Data Quality
in Census 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
^16Census officials provided a 1989 study, How Good is How Well, that
discussed a 1982 study conducted by Education exploring the relationship
between answering "very well" on the English ability questions and
performance on a language ability test. The study focused on adults (not
on students with limited English proficiency). The Census study explored
the relationships between responses to the English ability questions and
other factors linked to English usage. We were not able to assess the
reliability of these studies.
In addition, ACS data for 2003 and 2004 show some large fluctuations in
the number of respondents who speak English less than very well. In part,
these fluctuations can be attributed to the partial implementation of the
ACS in these 2 years.^17 The full implementation of the ACS occurred in
2005, and the data on English ability were not yet available at the time
of our review. Our analysis of the 2003 and 2004 ACS data that Education
used as the basis of Title III funding showed that 13 states had increases
of 10 percent or more in this population, while 20 states and the District
of Columbia had decreases of 10 percent or more from the prior year.
Table 2: Volatility in ACS Data
Annual
rate
Number of students with limited Annual of
English proficiency (speak rate of growth
English less than "very well") "growth" from
from 2003
Census ACS ACS 2000 to Difference in Counts to
2000 2003 2004 2003 (2003-2004) 2004
State Totals 3,493,118 3,942,395 3,792,910 4.1% -149,485 -3.8%
without
Puerto Rico
Totals with 4,102,851 4,709,128 4,559,643 4.7% -149,485 -3.2%
Puerto Rico
Alabama 12,187 15,225 14,970 7.7% -255 -1.7%
Alaska 6,126 5,500 5,090 -3.5% -410 -7.5%
Arizona 108,738 117,530 101,140 2.6% -16,390 -14.0%
Arkansas 11,660 13,635 21,800 5.4% 8,165 59.9%
California 1,111,387 1,050,180 1,075,825 -1.9% 25,645 2.4%
Colorado 45,866 66,865 60,430 13.4% -6,435 -9.6%
Connecticut 31,705 28,080 33,020 -4.0% 4,940 17.6%
Delaware 4,877 6,030 7,015 7.3% 985 16.3%
District of 4,509 5,835 2,950 9.0% -2,885 -49.4%
Columbia
Florida 179,109 231,710 235,830 9.0% 4,120 1.8%
Georgia 62,289 93,155 78,495 14.4% -14,660 -15.7%
Hawaii 13,585 10,565 12,945 -8.0% 2,380 22.5%
Idaho 8,812 12,485 12,550 12.3% 65 0.5%
Illinois 165,553 176,630 182,210 2.2% 5,580 3.2%
Indiana 26,562 57,500 70,380 29.4% 12,880 22.4%
Iowa 13,632 17,370 12,900 8.4% -4,470 -25.7%
Kansas 17,992 15,965 17,160 -3.9% 1,195 7.5%
Kentucky 10,896 16,565 17,580 15.0% 1,015 6.1%
Louisiana 15,265 18,740 15,235 7.1% -3,505 -18.7%
Maine 2,503 2,590 3,865 1.2% 1,275 49.2%
Maryland 34,318 38,640 39,900 4.0% 1,260 3.3%
Massachusetts 60,631 77,685 59,785 8.6% -17,900 -23.0%
Michigan 48,542 72,320 49,255 14.2% -23,065 -31.9%
Minnesota 37,703 44,530 48,180 5.7% 3650 8.2%
Mississippi 7,168 7,410 4,775 1.1% -2,635 -35.6%
Missouri 19,607 28,600 19,950 13.4% -8,650 -30.24%
Montana 2,673 1,515 2,920 -17.2% 1,405 92.7%
Nebraska 11,013 14,100 12,460 8.6% -1,640 -11.6%
Nevada 34,337 48,730 58,010 12.4% 9,280 19.0%
New Hampshire 3,443 5,905 5,195 19.7% -710 -12.0%
New Jersey 99,993 121,360 100,680 6.7% -20,680 -17.0%
New Mexico 38,436 40,205 27,690 1.5% -12,,515 -31.1%
New York 303,212 388,795 332,065 8.6% -56730 -14.6%
North 50,797 65,600 73,710 8.9% 8,110 12.4%
Carolina
North Dakota 1,512 2,190 2,095 13.1% -95 -4.3%
Ohio 43,675 42,860 48,885 -0.6% 6,025 14.1%
Oklahoma 18,067 31,570 20,575 20.5% -10,995 -34.8%
Oregon 34,654 37,755 43,100 2.9% 5,345 14.2%
Pennsylvania 63,638 61,600 75,935 - 1.1% 14,335 23.3%
Rhode Island 12,170 17,865 11,875 13.7% -5,990 -33.5%
South 14,915 16,155 15,525 2.7% -630 -3.9%
Carolina
South Dakota 3,590 4,055 2,855 4.1% -1200 -29.6%
Tennessee 18,069 25,595 33,180 12.3% 7,585 29.6%
Texas 516,819 603,105 545,330 5.3% -57,775 -9.6%
Utah 18,171 19,215 20,590 1.9% 1,375 7.2%
Vermont 1,435 1,585 1,140 3.4% -445 -28.1%
Virginia 43,377 53,935 52,640 7.5% -1,295 -2.4%
Washington 59,677 58,840 59,350 -0.5% 510 0.9%
West Virginia 2,495 2,465 2,320 -0.4% -145 -5.9%
Wisconsin 34,285 44,275 39,665 8.9% -4,610 -10.4%
Wyoming 1,443 1,780 1,885 7.3% 105 5.9%
Puerto Rico 609,733 766,733
^17 ACS was not fully funded prior to 2005; the 2003 and 2004 data were
based on a sample that was approximately one third the size of the full
sample of 2005. Consequently, the sampling errors associated with the
smaller sample are larger than they would be with the full sample.
Source: GAO analysis of Census and ACS data.
Further, seven of the states that showed decreases of 10 percent or more
in the ACS 2003-04 data representing students with limited English
proficiency also showed an increase in the number of recent immigrants for
this period. Many of these immigrants were likely to have limited English
proficiency. For example, according to ACS data that Education uses to
represent students with limited English proficiency, Rhode Island had a
decrease of 33.5 percent in this population at the same time that it had
an increase (about 33 percent) in the number of recent immigrants (age 3
to 21).^18
Education used the most current ACS data available to distribute Title III
funding across the states, consequently the fluctuations in the ACS data
were reflected in fluctuations in funding. In so far as these data reflect
population changes, such fluctuations are to be expected. However, if the
fluctuations were due to errors resulting from the sample size for the
2003 and 2004 ACS data, then they may have resulted in some states
receiving a greater (or lesser) proportion of the funds than their
population of students with limited English proficiency and recently
immigrated children and youth would warrant.^19 Table 3 shows Education's
distribution of Title III funds across states for fiscal years 2005 and
2006.
^18 The 7 states that had at least a 10 percent drop in the ACS number
Education uses to represent the number of students with limited English
proficiency and an increase in the number of recent immigrants are:
Arizona, Georgia, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and
Wisconsin.
^19 ACS data will continue to experience some degree of volatility due to
the introduction of the full household sample size for 2005, changes in
response rates, changes in annual population controls (which determine the
annual changes in the population and its characteristics), and the
incorporation of information from the 2010 Decennial Census.
Table 3: Allocation of Title III Funds for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006
Title III Allocations to states
FY 2006
FY 2005(Dollars) (Dollars) Percentage Difference
Totals with Puerto
Rico 579,164,605 617,176,837 6.56%
Alabama 2,969,385 3,174,723 6.92%
Alaska 835,169 951,490 13.93%
Arizona 16,053,667 17,374,634 8.23%
Arkansas 1,986,077 3,612,909 81.91%
California 149,565,827 166,955,253 11.63%
Colorado 9,947,707 9,613,097 -3.36%
Connecticut 4,440,248 5,571,146 25.47%
Delaware 876,486 1,212,964 38.39%
Florida 38,999,401 42,709,671 9.51%
Georgia 13,281,802 13,188,888 -0.70%
Hawaii 1,645,216 2,298,533 39.71%
Idaho 2,107,363 2,030,270 -3.66%
Illinois 24,732,083 28,836,450 16.60%
Indiana 7,644,463 10,667,335 39.54%
Iowa 2,907,230 2,020,724 -30.49%
Kansas 2,417,540 2,740,852 13.37%
Kentucky 2,404,457 3,118,830 29.71%
Louisiana 3,317,197 2,346,119 -29.27%
Maine 500,000 621,027 24.21%
Maryland 6,654,183 7,437,226 11.77%
Massachusetts 11,258,663 9,855,919 -12.46%
Michigan 11,540,302 8,594,099 -25.53%
Minnesota 6,595,273 7,098,282 7.63%
Mississippi 1,017,471 742,851 -26.99%
Missouri 4,538,410 3,100,690 -31.68%
Montana 500,000 500,000 0.00%
Nebraska 2,143,231 2,130,605 -0.59%
Nevada 6,865,410 8,673,706 26.34%
New Hampshire 1,056,420 823,886 -22.01%
New Jersey 20,186,729 16,783,993 -16.86%
New Mexico 5,347,129 4,051,960 -24.22%
New York 53,923,317 53,526,957 -0.74%
North Carolina 9,979,375 12,582,872 26.09%
North Dakota 500,000 500,000 0.00%
Ohio 6,567,211 8,027,863 22.24%
Oklahoma 4,869,319 3,843,474 -21.07%
Oregon 5,300,358 6,888,009 29.95%
Pennsylvania 8,982,966 11,458,626 27.56%
Rhode Island 2,375,164 1,950,367 -17.88%
South Carolina 2,588,131 2,502,240 -3.32%
South Dakota 515,986 500,000 -3.10%
Tennessee 4,546,936 5,523,057 21.47%
Texas 82,422,240 85,865,561 4.18%
Utah 2,888,015 3,652,520 26.47%
Vermont 500,000 500,000 0.00%
Virginia 9,222,809 9,823,062 6.51%
Washington 8,547,438 10,265,825 20.10%
West Virginia 610,998 500,000 -18.17%
Wisconsin 6,171,980 6,258,643 1.40%
Wyoming 500,000 500,000 0.00%
District of Columbia 922,000 583,745 -36.69%
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
Note: States studied in bold.
In our 12 study states, we found differences between the state-reported
number of students identified as having limited English proficiency and
the ACS data that Education uses to represent this population of students
(see fig. 3). In 6 states, the 2004 ACS number was greater than the
state's count (for school year 2004-05), while in the other 6 states the
ACS number was less than the corresponding state count.^20 For example,
while California reported having about 1.6 million students with limited
English proficiency in the 2004-05 school year, ACS estimates of the
population of persons ages 5 to 21 who speak a language other than English
in the home and speak English less than "very well" was less than 1.1
million. This represents a difference of almost 50 percent. The difference
in New York for that school year was also large--New York reported about
204,000 students with limited English proficiency--and the ACS number used
by Education was about 332,000, a difference of almost 40 percent for the
same school year (see fig. 3).
^20In all but one of the 12 study states, the state data were outside the
margin of error--that is they fell outside the 90 percent confidence
interval provided by ACS. Florida's data were within the margin of error.
Figure 3: Percentage Differences between School Year 2004-05
State-Reported Data and 2004 ACS Data in 12 Study States
Note: GAO collected these state data because, at the time of our review,
Education had not completed its review of the reasonableness of the
Consolidated State Performance Report data on the number of students with
limited English proficiency that was being done to provide reliable data
for input into Education's new national data system.
Education used ACS data for the number of immigrant children and youth for
fiscal years 2005 and 2006; however, for fiscal years 2002-2004, Education
relied on state-reported counts of the number of immigrant children and
youth. With regard to data states collect on the number of children and
youth who are recent immigrants, state officials expressed a lack of
confidence in these data. State officials in some of the 12 study states
told us that these data were not very reliable because school and school
district officials did not ask about immigration status directly. Some
state and school district officials told us that in order to determine
whether a student should be classified as a recent immigrant, they relied
on information such as place of birth and the student's date of entry into
the school system. Officials in one state told us that in the absence of
prior school documentation, they made the assumption that if a student was
born outside the U.S. and entered the state's school system within the
last 3 years, then the student was a recent immigrant. See table 4 for
more information about the characteristics of state-collected data and ACS
data pertaining to children and youth who are recent immigrants.
Table 4: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Immigrant
Children and Youth
ACS data on immigrant State-collected data on
Feature children and youth^a immigrant children and youth^b
Measures provided Number of foreign-born Number of students in grades
persons ages 3 to21 who K-12 identified as recent
arrived in the United immigrants.
States within the 3
years prior to the
survey.
How it is measured Self report (sample of States make determinations
population). based on student records or
other information. Some states
told us that they are not able
to directly ask students
questions related to their
immigration status.
Timing Annual average of Varies.
monthly sample.
Purpose To comply with To comply with the NCLBA
Immigration Nationality requirement to assess progress
Act and Public Health of all limited English
Service Act proficient children, including
requirements. immigrant children and youth,
to attain English proficiency.
To provide data to set
and evaluate immigration
policies and laws.
Education's role Work with Census to make Education collects this number
in data collection sure appropriate from the states in the
questions are included. Consolidated State Performance
Reports.
Can propose new
questions, if necessary.
Source: GAO analysis of information from Census, Education, and 12 study
states.
aThis column refers to data obtained by Education from ACS, but ACS
collects additional data.
bSome states may have data available for children prior to kindergarten.
The ACS data on the number of children and youth who are recent immigrants
represent the number of foreign-born persons ages 3 to 21 who came to the
United States within the 3 years prior to the survey. Similar to the ACS
data that Education used to represent students with limited English
proficiency, these data are also based on self reports. However, the ACS
responses are more objective (e.g., the date of entry into the United
States) and therefore may be more consistent than the responses to the
English ability questions.
Some States Could Receive More Funding While Others Could Receive Less Depending
on Which Data Source Education Uses
Education's choice to use one data set over the other has implications for
the amount of funding states receive because the data sources specified in
NCLBA measure different populations in different ways. We simulated the
distribution of funds across our 12 study states, using ACS data and data
representing the number of students with limited English proficiency
reported to us by state officials. We used the number of students with
limited English proficiency identified by states, rather than the number
of these students assessed annually for their English proficiency because
state-reported data on the number of students assessed for school years
2003-04 or 2004-05 were not available for all the 12 study states.
Throughout the simulation, we used ACS data representing the number of
immigrant children and youth. Based on our simulation, we found that in
fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 5 of the 12 study states--Arizona, California,
Colorado, Nevada, and Washington--would have received more funding and the
other 7 study states would have received less (see figs. 4 and 5).
Figure 4: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based on
a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2005)
Figure 5: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based on
a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2006)
Under NCLBA, Federal Funding for Students with Limited English Proficiency and
Immigrant Children and Youth Has Increased, and More School Districts Are
Receiving Funds
Federal funds for students with limited English proficiency and immigrant
children and youth increased significantly from fiscal year 2001--the year
prior to the enactment of the NCLBA-- to fiscal year 2006. In addition to
the increase in funding to the states, many more school districts received
funds under the Title III formula grant program.
Funding for Students with Limited English Proficiency and Immigrant Students
Increased Significantly under Title III from Title VII Levels
Federal funding for students with limited English proficiency and
immigrant children and youth increased significantly from fiscal year 2001
(the year prior to the enactment of NCLBA) to fiscal year 2002 when
Congress first authorized Education to distribute funds to states under
Title III. In fiscal year 2001 states, schools, school districts, and
universities received almost all of the $446 million dollars appropriated
for Title VII to educate students with limited English proficiency,
including immigrant students. Congress appropriated over $650 million for
this purpose in fiscal year 2002. Annual appropriations remained between
$650 million and $685 million in fiscal years 2003-06 (see fig. 6).
Figure 6: Appropriations for Programs to Support Students with Limited
English Proficiency Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006
Under NCLBA, 37 states received an increase in funding to support students
with limited English proficiency and immigrant children and youth in
fiscal year 2006,^21 compared to funding in fiscal year 2001 under Title
VII. Education provided about 93 percent (more than $600 million) of funds
to support students with limited English proficiency and immigrant
children and youth to states based on the Title III formula for funding
distribution in fiscal year 2006. The remainder funded other Title III
programs, including professional development grants (5.4%) and Native
American and Alaskan Native grants (1.2%).
In fiscal year 2001, Education distributed 41.2 percent of the $432
million^22 of Title VII funds provided to states in the form of
discretionary grants to schools, school districts, and state education
agencies to support the education of students with limited English
proficiency, and 22.5 percent for professional development of teachers and
others associated with the education of these students. Education
allocated (34.4%) to states to support the education of immigrant students
under the Emergency Immigrant program and the remaining 1.9 percent to
state educational agencies for program administration and to provide
technical assistance to school districts. (See fig. 7 for distribution of
Title VII funds in total and Title III funds by program for fiscal years
2001-06.)
^21 Fiscal year 2006 is the most recent year for which we have state by
state Title III funding allocations.
^22 Of the $446 million appropriated for Title VII in fiscal year 2001,
about $14 million was retained by Education to support the National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education and other support services.
Figure 7: Distribution of Title VII and Title III Funds Provided to States
in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006
The percentage of grant funding specified for professional development
decreased from 22.5 percent under Title VII in fiscal year 2001 to about
5.4 percent under Title III in fiscal year 2006. However, Education
officials told us that states and school districts are required to use a
portion of the Title III formula grant funding they receive to provide
professional development for teachers and other staff even though the
level of funds is not specified in the law. As a result, officials believe
that more funds are being spent for professional development under Title
III than under Title VII.
The percentage of funding provided for programs specifically for immigrant
students was higher under Title VII than under Title III. Under Title VII,
Education distributed about 34 percent of fiscal year 2001 funding to
states based on the number of immigrant students in the state. In
contrast, 20 percent of the Title III formula grant funds is distributed
to states on the basis of their relative number of immigrant students.
Upon receiving Title III grants, states are to reserve up to 15 percent of
their formula grants to award subgrants to school districts within the
state with significant increases in school enrollment of immigrant
children and youth. Officials in our study states told us that the
percentage of funds they reserved specifically for providing enhanced
instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth ranged from 0
to15 percent, and varied in some states from year to year. For example,
one state's officials noted that the percentage varied from 8 percent in
fiscal year 2003 to none in fiscal year 2005. Officials in our study
states generally explained that they distributed Title III funds reserved
for this purpose to school districts with a significant increase in
immigrant students over the previous 2 years. For example, another state
official stated that to receive these funds, school districts must have an
increase of either 3 percent or 50 students from the average of the 2
previous years, whichever is less, and must have a minimum of 10 immigrant
students.
More School Districts Received Funds for Students with Limited English
Proficiency under Title III Formula-Based Funding Than under the Title VII
Discretionary Grants
The number of school districts receiving federal funding for students with
limited English proficiency has increased under Title III compared to
under Title VII. For example, in three of our study states (California,
Texas, and Illinois) more than 1,900 school districts received funding for
students with limited English proficiency under Title III in school year
2003-04 compared to about 500 school districts (including districts in
which schools were awarded Title VII grants directly) receiving such
funding under Title VII. Further, fewer schools in a district receiving
Title VII funds may have actually benefited from these funds. For example,
officials in two districts noted that under Title III all schools in the
districts received some funds to support their students with limited
English proficiency. In contrast, these officials told us that prior to
NCLBA, Title VII discretionary grants were targeted to some schools in
their districts while other schools with students with limited English
proficiency received no Title VII funds. Education officials estimated
that Title III funds are now being used to support 80 percent of the
students with limited English proficiency in schools.^23
States and School Districts Used Title III Funds to Support Programs for
Students with Limited English Proficiency, but Some Cited Challenges Recruiting
Highly Qualified Staff
States and school districts reported using Title III funds to support a
variety of programs and activities for students with limited English
proficiency, ranging from various types of language instruction programs
to professional development. With regard to challenges in implementing
effective programs, officials we interviewed in 5 study states and 8
school districts reported difficulty recruiting qualified staff.
Title III Funds Supported Various Programs and Activities, Including Language
Instruction and Professional Development
Nationwide, states and school districts reported using Title III funds to
support a variety of programs and activities, including language
instruction, activities to support immigrant children and youth,
professional development, and technical assistance. For example, all fifty
states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico reported that school
districts receiving Title III funds implemented various types of language
instruction programs, including bilingual and English as a second language
(ESL) programs, according to 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports to
Education.^24 Specifically, all states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico reported using ESL programs, which typically involve little or
no use of the native language, such as sheltered English instruction and
pull-out ESL.^25 In addition, all but 12 states also reported using
bilingual programs, which may provide instruction in two languages, such
as dual language programs that are designed to serve both
English-proficient and limited English proficient students concurrently
(see table 5). (See app. II for more information regarding
language-instruction programs that states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico reported using.)
^23 We did not assess the reliability of this estimate.
^24 Appendix I provides descriptions of different types of language
instruction programs.
^25 Sheltered English instruction and pull-out ESL are both language
instruction programs in which students with limited English proficiency
are instructed in English. The sheltered English instruction helps
students with limited English proficiency become proficient in English
while at the same time learning academic content. The pull-out approach
moves students with limited English proficiency out of the regular
classroom for special instruction in English as a second language.
Table 5: Number of States, Including the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds to Support Different Types of
Language Instruction Programs
Number ofstates^a using funds to
Type of language instruction program support program
ESL: 52
Sheltered English instruction 45
Structured English immersion 35
Specially designed academic instruction 17
delivered in English
Content-based ESL 41
Pull-out ESL 44
Other^b 22
Bilingual programs: 40
Dual language 30
Two-way immersion 17
Transitional bilingual 31
Developmental bilingual 11
Heritage language 15
Other^c 7
Source: GAO Analysis of 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports to the
US Department of Education.
aIncludes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
bSome states reported that school districts receiving Title III funds
implemented other ESL programs; for example, one state reported districts
used push-in ESL, which it described as providing instruction in English
and native language support if needed to students with limited English
proficiency in the regular classroom. Two states noted using the inclusion
approach, in which the ESL teacher is actually in the classroom and helps
to facilitate the instruction delivery of the regular classroom teacher,
with appropriate modifications for students with limited English
proficiency.
cSome states reported that school districts receiving Title III funds
implemented other bilingual programs; for example, one state noted using
foreign language immersion, which it described as a bilingual program in
which students with limited English proficiency are taught primarily or
exclusively through sheltered instruction or a second language, later
combined with native language classes.
Forty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported that
school districts used Title III funds designated to support activities for
immigrant children and youth for programs such as parent outreach,
tutorials, mentoring, and identifying and acquiring instructional
materials. For example, officials in one state noted that many school
districts used these funds to expand activities designed for all students
with limited English proficiency, while other districts used them to meet
the unique needs of immigrant students not addressed through other
programs, such as providing counseling for traumatized refugee students.
Officials in another state noted that school districts commonly used these
funds to provide newcomer centers that provided educational and other
services to recent immigrants and their parents. Funds were also used to
provide ESL classes before and after school for recent immigrant students
as well as ESL classes, literacy classes, and computer classes for their
parents.
States also reported that Title III funds supported professional
development activities. Specifically, all states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported that school districts used Title III
funds to conduct professional development activities for teachers or other
personnel, such as workshops or seminars on the administration and
interpretation of English language proficiency assessments or on various
teaching strategies for students with limited English proficiency. In
addition, 40 states reported reserving a portion of state-level funds^26
to provide professional development to assist teachers and other personnel
in meeting state and local certification, endorsement and licensing
requirements for teaching these students. For example, one state reported
offering a seminar once per year that provided professional development
hours that participants could use to meet state certification or
endorsement requirements, and another state noted that it reimbursed
teachers for tuition for courses that led to ESL endorsement.
In addition, 49^27 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
reported reserving state-level funds for other activities, including
providing technical assistance, planning, and administration (table 6).
All 12 study states reported reserving state-level funds. While all study
states reported reserving state-level funds for administration--including
salaries for Title III staff--as well as for professional development and
technical assistance, the majority of study states also reserved these
funds for other activities, such as to develop guidance on English
language proficiency standards.
^26 NCLBA allows states to reserve up to 5 percent of Title III funds for
state-level activities.
^27 Illinois did not complete the relevant checklists in the 2002-04
Biennial Evaluation Report. However, Illinois described implementing
certain state-level activities in the response narrative in the Biennial.
Illinois officials also told us, during our visit, that the state reserves
state-level funds.
Table 6: Number of States, including the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds for Various State-Level
Activities
Number of states^a
reservingstate-level funds for
Type of state-level activity activity
Technical assistance in one or more of the
following areas: 51
identifying or developing and implementing
measures of English language proficiency 50
helping students with limited English
proficiency meet standards expected of all
students 48
implementing English language instructional
programs based on scientific research 47
promoting parental and community
participation in programs for students with
limited English proficiency 44
other areas (such as strategic planning) 12
Other state-level activities: 51
planning 40
administration 40
professional development for
certification/licensing requirements 40
interagency cooperation 38
evaluation 36
other 7
Source: GAO analysis of 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports to the
U.S. Department of Education.
aStates include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Similarly, in interviews with officials in 11 school districts and
schools^28 we visited in 6 of our study states, we found that Title III
funds were used to support a variety of programs and activities for these
students. Most districts we visited reported using Title III funds for the
instructional program and materials as well as for professional
development and assessments. In addition, districts used these funds to
provide services, such as after-school tutoring or summer school programs,
and for parent outreach activities, such as adult ESL classes or workshops
on how to help your child succeed in school.
For example, in one school district, we visited a high school that used
Title III funds for two English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
teachers and one teacher aide who worked with all of the school's limited
English proficient students. School officials also said that the county
used Title III funds for a resource teacher who visited their school on a
weekly basis to instruct teachers in ESOL strategies. The resource teacher
also provided individualized pull-out instruction. This school also
purchased computer-based learning software with Title III funds.
^28 We visited one school in each of the 11 districts.
NCLBA requires school districts to use a portion of Title III funds for
language instruction programs for students with limited English
proficiency and to provide professional development to teachers or other
personnel. However, Education found issues related to these required uses
during Title III-monitoring visits to seven states. For example, Education
found that one of two districts visited in one state used all its Title
III funds for teacher salaries and benefits. Education found that this
issue arose due to a lack of familiarity with federal requirements and
required the state to develop a corrective action plan. However, in the
remaining 14 states monitored to date, Education did not find any issues
related to the required uses.
Some States and School Districts Cited Challenges in Recruiting Highly Qualified
Staff
Officials in five study states and in 8 school districts in the six states
we visited reported that difficulty hiring qualified teachers or other
personnel that meet NCLBA requirements presented challenges to
implementing effective programs. NCLBA requires public school teachers to
be highly qualified in every core academic subject they teach^29 and
increased the level of funding to help states and districts implement
teacher qualification requirements, including activities to help states
and districts recruit and retain highly qualified teachers. However,
officials in one district we visited noted that teacher transience in
high-needs schools presents challenges because schools must continually
provide training to new staff on strategies for teaching students with
limited English proficiency. In another district, officials noted a
particular challenge in locating qualified substitute teachers to work
with these students when necessary.
Prior GAO work also found that states and school districts were
experiencing challenges implementing NCLBA's teacher qualification
requirements, including difficulties with teacher recruitment and
retention. While we found that many of the hindrances reported by state
and district officials could not be addressed by Education, Education had
identified several steps it would take in its 2002-07 strategic plan
related to these issues, including supporting professional development and
encouraging innovative teacher compensation and accountability systems.
^29 Core subjects include English, reading or language arts, mathematics,
science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts,
history, and geography.
Education Provided Oversight and Support to Help States Meet Title III
Requirements
Education's oversight included Title III monitoring visits; twice yearly
discussions with states on information they provide to Education, known as
desk audits; and continuous informal monitoring in response to questions
from states. As part of its oversight effort, Education implemented a
monitoring program in 2005 to address each states' administration of the
Title III program. This monitoring effort was designed to provide regular,
systematic reviews and evaluations of how states meet Title III
requirements to ensure that they implement and administer programs in
accordance with the law. Monitoring is conducted on a 3-year cycle, and as
of September 2006, Education officials had monitored and reported on 20
states and the District of Columbia. Education officials reported that
they plan to visit 17 more states in fiscal year 2007.
As part of the monitoring visits, Education reviews states' and districts'
implementation of NCLBA requirements, such as data to be included in
required reports and required district uses of Title III funds. Education
has found issues relating to a number of these requirements. For example,
for 4 of the 20 states monitored and the District of Columbia, Education
had findings related to the data that these states submitted in their
Consolidated State Performance Reports. According to Education, 20 of the
21 monitoring reports had findings, and most states have developed
corrective action plans to address them. Education officials stated that
they are reviewing these plans and working with states to determine which
findings have been appropriately addressed and to develop a time frame for
resolving remaining findings.
In addition, Education's program officers perform semiannual reviews of
states' responses to sections of the Consolidated State Performance Report
related to Title III and Biennial Evaluation Reports states submit to
Education along with phone calls to state officials to address issues
identified. For example, in October 2005 the program officers asked states
how quickly they got the funding out to school districts because this was
an area identified as a concern. Finally, Education officials explained
that they provide informal, ongoing monitoring by addressing issues
brought up by state officials throughout the year.
Education offered support in a variety of ways to help states meet Title
III requirements. Education held on-site and phone meetings to provide
technical assistance to states, such as how to address the needs of those
students having both limited English proficiency and disabilities.
Education also held annual conferences focused on students with limited
English proficiency that included sessions that provided information to
state Title III directors and others on a variety of topics, such as NCLBA
policies related to students with limited English proficiency and English
language proficiency assessment issues. Education also held semiannual
meetings and training sessions with state Title III directors, a
nationwide Web cast on English language achievement objectives, and also
videoconference training sessions for some state officials on how to meet
Title III requirements. The department issued guidance on issues related
to students with limited English proficiency on its Web site and also
distributed information through an electronic bulletin board and a weekly
electronic newsletter focused on students with limited English proficiency
and through the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition
and Language Instruction Educational Programs. In addition, Education
plans to provide assistance to individual states in developing appropriate
goals for student progress in learning English through at least 3 of the
16 regional comprehensive centers the agency has contracted with to build
state capacity to help school districts that are not meeting their
adequate yearly progress goals.
Officials from 5 of the 12 study states reported general satisfaction with
the guidance, training, and technical assistance Education provided.
However, one area that officials from seven of the study states identified
as a challenge was addressing the needs of those students having both
limited English proficiency and disabilities. Although Education issued
guidance on including students with both limited English proficiency and
disabilities in English language assessments and English proficiency
goals, two states noted that the guidance does not specifically address
how to serve those students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities who also have limited English proficiency. Education
estimates that nationwide about 1 percent of students have the most
significant cognitive disabilities. An Education official stated that
there is limited research on how to address this group of students, but
Education is working with states and experts to explore the appropriate
identification, assessment, placement, and interventions for such
students.
In addition, officials in 5 of the 12 study states thought more guidance
was needed to develop English language proficiency assessments that meet
NCLBA's requirements. In our July 2006 report we found that Education has
issued little written guidance on how states are expected to assess and
track the English proficiency of these students, leaving some state
officials unclear about Education's expectations.^30 We recommended that
Education identify and provide the technical support states need to ensure
the validity of academic assessments and publish additional guidance on
requirements for assessing English language proficiency. Education agreed
with our recommendations and has begun to identify the additional
technical assistance needs of states and ways to provide additional
guidance in these areas.
Conclusions
NCLBA was enacted to ensure that all students have the opportunity to
succeed in school, including meeting state academic content standards and
language proficiency standards. However, if Education does not use the
most accurate data as the basis of Title III-funding distribution, funds
may be misallocated across states. NCLBA specifies that Education is to
distribute funds based on the more accurate data source--Census' ACS data
or the number of students with limited English proficiency assessed
annually. Because Education has not provided states with clear
instructions on the portions of the Consolidated State Performance Report
relevant to the collection of state data on the number of students with
limited English proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency, it
has been difficult for states to provide the data Education needs in order
to consider the use of state data as the basis of distributing Title III
funds. Until Education provides clear instructions, states may continue to
provide inconsistent data.
Once Education has provided such instructions and continues to work with
states to improve data quality, the state data will be more reliable and
complete. In addition, as Education completes its review of state-supplied
school-year 2003-04 and 2004-05 data, it will be in a better position to
consider the relative accuracy of the ACS and state data. However,
^30 See [33]GAO-06-815 for further information.
without a methodology in place to assess the relative accuracy of these
data sources, it is unclear how Education will determine which data to use
as the basis of Title III-funding distribution. This is of particular
concern, since without such a methodology, it will remain unknown how well
either of the two data sources captures the population of children with
limited English proficiency.
In addition, ACS data have shown volatility--large increases and
decreases--in the numbers of students with limited English proficiency
from 2003 to 2004. While some volatility may be related to population
fluctuations, some is related to the ACS sample size. Consequently, states
may experience excessive fluctuations in their funding amounts from year
to year. Some states may continue to see large fluctuations in the Title
III funding when data based on the fulI ACS sample are introduced, when
data are based on new annual population estimates are incorporated, and
when data based on the 2010 Decennial Census become available. As a
result, states affected by this volatility may be unable to plan
effectively.
Recommendations
To address the need for reliable and complete state data on the number of
students with limited English proficiency assessed annually, we recommend
that the Secretary of Education clarify the instructions on the portions
of the Consolidated State Performance Report relevant to the collection of
data on the number of students with limited English proficiency assessed
annually for English proficiency.
To strengthen the basis for Education's distribution of Title III funds,
we recommend that the Secretary of Education develop and implement a
transparent methodology for determining the relative accuracy of the two
allowable sources of data, ACS or state data on the number of students
with limited English proficiency assessed annually, for Title III
allocations to states.
To address volatility in annual ACS data, we recommend that as part of
NCLBA reauthorization, the Secretary should seek authority to use
statistical methodologies, such as multiyear averages.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. In
a letter, Education agreed with our recommendation regarding the need for
reliable and complete data on the number of students with limited English
proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency. The department
stated that it has addressed this recommendation by revising the CSPR data
collection form for the 2005-06 school year and by proposing additional
changes to the 2007 CSPR (Part I) form. However, as stated in our report,
Education did not provide documentation of the proposed changes. Further,
it is not clear that the changes the department describes would result in
complete and reliable data on the number of students with English
proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency. We still recommend
that Education review and clarify instructions to allow for an
unduplicated count of students that would meet NCLBA requirements for use
as a potential data source for funding. Regarding our second
recommendation, Education agreed that it should develop a methodology to
compare the relative accuracy of the two data sources, but stated that it
should wait until the quality of state data improves. However, we
encourage Education to take steps now to develop a methodology, since the
department has been taking multiple steps to improve the quality and
completeness of state data. In this way, Education will be positioned to
determine which data source is the more accurate when state data has
sufficiently improved. Finally, Education seemed to agree with our
recommendation concerning the volatility of ACS data, but commented that
the department did not have the legal authority to use multiyear averages
of ACS data as the basis for distributing Title III funds. The department
suggested that Congress might want to address this issue in the NCLBA
reauthorization. As a result, we changed the recommendation to state that
as part of NCLBA reauthorization, Education should seek authority to use
statistical methodologies, such as multiyear averages, to address the
volatility of ACS data.
Education officials also provided technical comments that we incorporated
into the report where appropriate. Education's written comments are
reproduced in appendix III.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be made available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov .
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Major contributors are listed in appendix IV.
Cornelia M. Ashby, Director Education, Workforce and Income Security
Issues
Appendix I: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language Instruction
The following information was gathered from the National Clearinghouse of
English Language Acquisition's (NCELA) web site. NCELA identified various
sources for the program descriptions.
Table 7: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language Instruction
Type of Program Description
Bilingual education Bilingual education is an educational program in
which two languages are used to provide content
matter instruction. Some bilingual programs use
and promote two languages, while in others,
bilingual children are present, but bilingualism
is not fostered in the curriculum.
Dual language program Also known as two-way immersion or two-way
bilingual education, dual language programs are
designed to serve both language minority and
language majority students concurrently. Two
language groups are put together and instruction
is delivered through both languages. For example,
in the United States, native English speakers
might learn Spanish as a foreign language while
continuing to develop their English literacy
skills and Spanish-speaking students with limited
English proficiency learn English while
developing literacy in Spanish.
Two-way immersion See dual language program.
Transitional bilingual Transitional bilingual education is an
education instructional program in which subjects are
taught through two languages--English and the
native language of the English language
learners--and English is taught as a second
language. English language skills, grade
promotion, and graduation requirements are
emphasized, and the native language is used as a
tool to learn content. The primary purpose of
these programs is to facilitate the student with
limited English proficiency's transition to an
all-English instructional environment while
receiving academic subject instruction in the
native language to the extent necessary. As
proficiency in English increases, instruction
through the native language decreases.
Transitional bilingual education programs vary in
the amount of native language instruction
provided and the duration of the. Transitional
bilingual education programs may be early-exit
(in which children move from bilingual education
programs to English-only classes in the first or
second year of schooling) or late-exit (in which
children participate in bilingual instruction for
3 or more years of schooling), depending on the
amount of time a child may spend in the program.
Developmental bilingual Developmental bilingual education is a program
education that teaches content through two languages and
develops both languages with the goal of
bilingualism (e.g., the ability to use two
languages) and biliteracy (e.g., the ability to
effectively communicate or understand thoughts
and ideas through two languages' grammatical
systems and vocabulary, using their written
symbols).
English as a second English as a second language is an educational
language (ESL) approach in which English language learners are
instructed in the use of the English language.
Their instruction is based on a special
curriculum that typically involves little or no
use of the native language, focuses on language
(as opposed to content), and is usually taught
during specific school periods. For the rest of
the school day, students may be placed in
mainstream classrooms, an immersion program, or a
bilingual education program. Every bilingual
education program has an English as a second
language.
Heritage language Heritage language refers to the language a person
regards as their native, home, and/or ancestral
language. This covers indigenous languages (e.g.,
Navajo) and in-migrant languages (e.g., Spanish
in the U.S).
Sheltered English Sheltered English instruction is an approach used
instruction to make academic instruction in English
understandable to English language learners to
help them acquire proficiency in English while at
the same time achieving in content areas.
Sheltered English instruction differs from
English as a second language in that English is
not taught as a language with a focus on learning
the language. Rather, content knowledge and
skills are the goals. In the sheltered classroom,
teachers use simplified language, physical
activities, visual aids, and the environment to
teach vocabulary for concept development in
mathematics, science, social studies, and other
subjects.
Structured English In this program, language minority students
immersion receive all of their subject matter instruction
in English. The teacher uses a simplified form of
English. Students may use their native language
in class; however, the teacher uses only English.
The goal is to help minority language students
acquire proficiency in English while at the same
time achieving in content areas.
Specially designed Specially designed academic instruction in
academic instruction in English is a program of instruction in a subject
English area, delivered in English, which is specially
designed to provide students with limited English
proficiency with access to the curriculum.
Content-based English as Content-based English as a second language is an
a second language approach to teaching English as a second language
that makes use of instructional materials,
learning tasks, and classroom techniques from
academic content areas as the vehicle for
developing language, content, cognitive, and
study skills. English is used as the medium of
instruction.
Pull-out English as a Pull-out English as a second language is a
second language program in which students with limited English
proficiency are "pulled out" of regular,
mainstream classrooms for special instruction in
English as a second language.
Source: NCELA, http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/glossary.html as viewed on
9/22/2006.
Appendix II: Language Instruction Educational Programs Used by States in
School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04
Bilingual Programs
Dual Two way Transitional Developmental Heritage
State language immersion bilingual bilingual language Other^a
Ala.
Ak. x x x x x x
Ark.
Ariz. x x x
Calif. x x
Colo. x x x
Conn. x x
Del. x x x
D.C. x x x x
Fla. x x
Ga.
Hawaii x
Iowa x x x x
Id. x
Ill. x x x x x
Ind. x
Kan. x x x x
Ky. x x
La.
Mass. x x
Me. x x x
Md. x
Mich. x x x x
Minn. x x x
Mo.
Miss. x x
Mont. x
N.C. x x x x
N.D. x x x x
Neb. x x
N.H.
N.J. x x x x
N.M. x x x x x
ESL
Sheltered Structured Specially designed
English English academic instruction Content-based Pull-out
instruction immersion delivered in English ESL ESL Other^b
x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x x x
x x
x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x
x x x
x x x x x
x x x
x x x x
x x x
x x x x
x x x
x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x
x x x x x
x x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x
x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x x x x
Bilingual Programs
Dual Two way Transitional Developmental Heritage
State language immersion bilingual bilingual language Other^a
Nev. x x
N.Y. x x x x
Ohio x x x
Okla. x
Ore. x x x
Penn. x
P.R. x
R.I. x x
S.C.
S.D. x x x
Tenn.
Tex. x x x x
Utah x x x
Vt.
Va.
Wash. x x
Wis. x x x x
W.Va.
Wyo.
ESL
Sheltered Sheltered Special designed
English English academic instruction Content-based Pull-out
instruction immersion delivered in English ESL ESL Other^b
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x
x
x x x
x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x
x x x
x x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x
x x
x x x x x
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education 2002-04 Biennial
Evaluation Report to Congress
aSome states reported that school districts receiving Title III funds
implement other bilingual programs; for example, one state noted using
foreign language immersion, which it described as a bilingual program in
which students with limited English proficiency are taught primarily or
exclusively through sheltered instruction or a second language, later
combined with native language classes.
bSome states reported that school districts receiving Title III funds
implement other English as a second language programs; for example, one
state reported districts use push-in ESL, which it described as providing
instruction in English and native language support if needed to students
with limited English proficiency in the regular classroom. Two states
noted using the Inclusion approach, in which the English as a second
language teacher is actually in the classroom and helps to facilitate the
instruction delivery of the regular classroom teacher, with appropriate
modifications for students with limited English proficiency.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215, [email protected]
Staff Acknowledgments
Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Julianne Hartman Cutts
(Analyst-in-Charge) and Nagla'a El-Hodiri (Senior Economist) managed all
aspects of this assignment. R. Jerry Aiken, Melinda L. Cordero, and
Elisabeth Helmer made significant contributions to this report. Tovah Rom
contributed to writing this report. Jean McSween, Robert Dinkelmeyer, and
Robert Parker provided key technical support. James Rebbe provided legal
support.
(130538)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-140 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-7215 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [42]GAO-07-140 , a report to congressional requesters
December 2006
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT
EDUCATION'S DATA IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS COULD STRENGTHEN THE BASIS FOR
DISTRIBUTING TITLE III FUNDS
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) designates
federal funds to support the education of students with limited English
proficiency and provides for formula-based grants to states. This report
describes the data the Education Department used to distribute Title III
funds and the implications of data measurement issues for the two
allowable sources of data-- American Community Survey (ACS) and state
assessment data--for allocating funds across states. In addition, the
report describes changes in federal funding to support these students
under NCLBA and how states and school districts used these funds as well
as Education's Title III oversight and support to states. To address these
objectives, GAO reviewed documentation on ACS and state data, interviewed
federal and state officials, and collected data from 12 states, 11
districts, and 6 schools.
[43]What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that Education provide clear instructions to states on how
and where to provide data specified in NCLBA on the number of students
with limited English proficiency, develop and implement a methodology for
determining which is the more accurate of the two allowable sources of
data, and seek authority to use statistical methodologies to reduce the
volatility associated with ACS data. Education generally agreed with GAO's
recommendations.
Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funds, but measurement
issues with both ACS and state data could result in funding differences.
Education used ACS data primarily because state data were incomplete. In
September, Education officials told us they were developing plans to
clarify instructions for state data submissions to address identified
inconsistencies. While Education officials expected their efforts to
improve the quality of the data, they told us that they had not
established criteria or a methodology to determine the relative accuracy
of the two data sources. State data represent the number of students with
limited English proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency, and
ACS data are based in part on responses to subjective English ability
questions from a sample of the population. ACS data showed large increases
and decreases in numbers of these students from 2003 to 2004 in part due
to sample size. ACS data and state counts of students with limited English
proficiency for the 12 study states differed (see graph). GAO's simulation
of the distribution of Title III funds for fiscal years 2005 and 2006
based on these numbers showed that there would be differences in how much
funding states would receive.
Percentage Differences between State-Reported Data (2004-05) and 2004 ACS
Data in 12 Study States
In fiscal year 2006, Congress authorized over $650 million in Title III
funding for students with limited English proficiency--an increase of over
$200 million since fiscal year 2001 under NCLBA. This increase in funding
as well as the change in how funds are distributed--from a primarily
discretionary grant program to a formula grant program--contributed to
more districts receiving federal funding to support students with limited
English proficiency since the enactment of NCLBA. States and school
districts used Title III funds to support programs and activities
including language instruction and professional development. Education
provided oversight and support to states. Officials from 5 of the 12 study
states reported overall satisfaction with the support from Education.
However, some officials indicated that they needed more guidance in
certain areas, such as developing English language proficiency assessments
that meet NCLBA's requirements. Education is taking steps to address
issues states identified.
References
Visible links
30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-815
31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-815
32. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/
33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-815
42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-140
*** End of document. ***