MEETING THE NEEDS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS 

AND OTHER DIVERSE LEARNERS

merica’s schools are responsible for meeting the educational needs of an increasingly 

diverse student population, and ESEA programs must provide a wide range of 

resources and support to ensure that all students have the opportunity to succeed in college 

and in a career. ESEA includes programs that help schools meet the special educational 

needs of children working to learn the English language, students with disabilities, Native 

American students, homeless students, the children of migrant workers, and neglected or 

delinquent students. In addition, the federal government has a responsibility to provide 

assistance to certain high-need regions and areas, including rural districts and districts that 

are affected by federal property and activities.

In each of these areas, the Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal will continue 

and strengthen the federal commitment to serving all students, and improve each program to 

ensure that funds are used more effectively to meet the needs of the students they serve.

A

OUR APPROACH

►Improving programs for English Learners and encouraging innovative programs and 

practices to support English Learners’ success and build the knowledge base about 

what works.

►Maintaining and strengthening formula grant programs for Native American 

students, homeless students, migrant students, and neglected or delinquent students; 

as well as for districts that are in rural areas or that are affected by federal property 

and activities.

►Meeting the needs of students with disabilities throughout ESEA and through the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
This page intentionally left blank.
ENGLISH LEARNER EDUCATION

OUR APPROACH

► Strengthen programs for English Learners by requiring states to put in place certain key 

conditions for reform.

► Focus on developing promising practices and scaling up effective practices for improving 

the instruction of English Learners and for preparing and developing effective teachers of English 

Learners, through competitive grants, research, and graduate fellowships.

English Learners (ELs) are the fastestgrowing student population within the U.S.

Approximately 4.7 million, or 10 percent, of the 

nation’s students in grades K–12 were classified 

as ELs in 2007–08 (U.S. Department of 

Education, forthcoming). This is an increase of 

approximately 60 percent since the late 1990s, 

while the size of the total student population 

remained unchanged (Batalova et al., 2006). 

Although southwestern states have the highest 

proportions of ELs, more than half of all states 

reported EL proportions of at least 5 percent of 

their K–12 enrollment (U.S. Department of 

Education, forthcoming). The fastest growth has 

taken place in parts of the country that have had 

relatively less prior experience serving ELs in the 

education system. For example, the K–12 EL 

populations in Nebraska and North Carolina 

rose by 301 and 372 percent, respectively, from 

1996 to 2006 (Batalova et al., 2006; The Working 

Group on ELL Policy, 2009). Despite the 

growth in the EL population, as of early 2009, 10 

states did not provide any state-level funds 

dedicated to the education of ELs (Education 

Week, 2009). Approximately 35 percent of ELs 

were born outside of the U.S. (Education Week, 

2009), and some English Learners have 

experienced significant interruptions in their 

formal education. 

A large achievement gap exists between ELs 

and their non-EL classmates. For example, on 

the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP), only 6 percent of fourth-grade 

EL students scored at or above proficiency in 

reading compared to 36 percent of non-ELs in 

2009 (NCES, 2009b). In 2009, 12 percent of 

fourth-grade ELs scored at or above proficiency 

in mathematics compared with 41 percent of 

non-EL students (NCES, 2009a). In addition, 

ELs are much more likely to score below the 

Basic level: In 2009, 72 percent of eighth-grade 

ELs scored below Basic in mathematics 

compared to 26 percent of non-ELs, and, in 

2009, more than two-thirds of ELs scored below 

Basic in reading (74 percent) compared to 22

percent of non-ELs (NCES, 2009a and 2009b).

States need to adopt and develop collegeand career-ready standards for their EL 

populations and need their EL assessments 

to provide valid and reliable measures of a 

student’s English proficiency level. Once 

states adopt college- and career-ready academic 

content standards, they will need to revise their 

current English Language Proficiency (ELP)

standards to link them to these new content 

standards. This will ensure that the standards 

address the English skills students need to learn 

academic content. States then will have to align 

their ELP assessments with these new ELP 

standards. Currently, ELP assessments are not 

peer-reviewed, and some states still have ELP 

assessments that are not completely aligned with 

their ELP standards. Once states have better 

alignment between ELP standards and 
assessments, they then also will need to do more 

to examine possible patterns of differential 

performance on the ELP assessments in order to 

ensure that the assessments do not unfairly 

discriminate against certain subgroups within the 

larger EL population (Abedi, 2008). 

While there are certain practices that have 

been shown to benefit ELs, more research 

and evaluation is needed on the types of 

language instruction educational programs 

(LIEPs) that are most effective for ELs. The 

National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority

Children and Youth found that it is critical that 

teachers modify instruction for EL students in 

order to address their specific language needs 

(August and Shanahan, 2006; Goldenberg, 2008). 

Research also has identified other practices that 

benefit ELs, such as peer-assisted learning 

opportunities during which EL students work in 

structured pair activities (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2008). However, additional research is 

needed on effective instruction of English to EL 

students and appropriate interventions for EL 

students who are not acquiring English language 

proficiency after many years of participation in an 

LIEP. 

Saint Paul Public School District

St. Paul, Minnesota

Over the past few decades, the Saint Paul Public School District has worked to align its EL programs and 

services to the core values represented by the district’s mission—language proficiency, strong foundations, 

community engagement, and collaborative success (e-mail communication with H. Bernal, March 11, 

2010).

In the late 1990s, EL programs in Saint Paul began to move away from the “pull-out” model for EL services 

toward a content-based model. The content-based programs promote students’ mastery of academic 

content while they become proficient in English as subject areas are integrated with language objectives. 

Pull-out programs focus solely on developing students’ English language proficiency.

As EL programs moved from pull-out to instructional collaboration models, the Teaching English as a 

Second Language (TESOL) classes that served newcomer students were transitioned to the Language 

Academy program. The TESOL classes were comprised of English Learners taught by an English as a 

Second Language (ESL) teacher. The curriculum was focused on English language development rather than 

on content areas, such as math or science. EL students in TESOL classes had few opportunities to interact 

with English speakers, and did not always have access to the same school services (gym, library, etc.) as 

Districts and schools need to strengthen the 

ability of classroom teachers to effectively 

address the needs of English Learners. 

Research indicates that regular classroom 

teachers must modify instruction for English 

Learners, but many current and prospective 

teachers do not receive adequate training in 

teaching ELs. Only Arizona, California, Florida,

and New York require all prospective teachers to 

demonstrate competence in teaching ELs 

(Ballantyne et al., 2008). Most teachers in LIEPs 

experience some professional development 

focused on working with ELs, but only a small 

percentage participate in significant professional 

development over a typical school year. For 

example, during the 2006–07 school year, 70 

percent of teachers who taught the core academic 

subjects at the elementary level or English and 

mathematics at the secondary level, and who 

worked in LIEPs, participated in at least one

hour of professional development on 

instructional strategies for teaching ELs, but only 

12 percent participated in more than 24 hours of 

such professional development over that school 

year (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). 

Likewise, only 35 percent of elementary teachers 

and secondary math and English teachers who 
(ESL) who are qualified to teach in LIEPs 

(Education Week, 2009; US Department of 

Education, 2009). In 2006–07, 35 percent of 

school districts reported difficulty recruiting 

highly-qualified ESL teachers. Nearly threequarters (71 percent) of large districts and half of 

all urban districts reported such problems (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2009). 

States project that 56,000 new ESL teachers will 

be needed across the nation within the next five

were not specifically working in LIEPs but who 

may have had EL students in their classes 

participated in at least one hour of professional 

development on instructional strategies for 

teaching ELs (U.S. Department of Education, 

2009). 

In addition to the lack of training on 

strategies for teaching English Learners, 

states and districts report a shortage of 

teachers of English as a Second Language 

other students. The implementation of the Language Academy model started in 1999 and addressed what 

the TESOL classes lacked. In Language Academy classrooms, students interact with both native Englishspeaking peers and fellow English Learners. Students develop English proficiency through studying content 

areas. They are taught by both a licensed ESL teacher and a licensed content-area teacher. Through the 

program, students are fully integrated into the school community. 

The transition towards instructional collaboration is evident in many levels of EL programs. General 

education and EL teachers work collaboratively to address the needs of students in the elementary and 

secondary schools. The concept of teaching language through content has spread throughout the Saint 

Paul school district in all levels of EL service. The focus has shifted away from teaching students English 

toward language proficiency and overall academic growth.

In addition to changing how EL services are delivered, the district has significantly expanded its dual

language programs over the past five years. Five elementary schools now have a Spanish dual language 

program, and one elementary school started the first Hmong dual language program in the nation. These 

dual language programs are successful in producing bilingual students who are bicultural and biliterate. 

Research has shown that students who are literate in their first language are more successful in attaining 

their second language. Students in the dual language programs have shown great success in becoming 

fluent in their native language and in English.

To complement their academic EL programs, the district also has developed cultural components and 

parent outreach efforts for EL students and families. To support the language and academic achievements 

of EL students, the EL department has designed professional development opportunities for district staff. 

Presentations are offered on languages, cultures, and histories of major EL student populations. Resources 

and workshops for embedding Hmong, Latino, and Somali cultures into the social studies curriculum also 

are offered annually. Parent advisory committees for the Hmong, Latino, and Somali families meet 

regularly. Parents also can participate in classes that teach basic English skills and how to navigate through 

the school system. All of these cultural and community components continue to grow and positively 

influence the experiences and achievements of students and parents.

Results 

From 2002to 2005, the percentage of EL students in the district who were proficient on the Minnesota’s 

third-grade reading test increased from 30 percent to 52 percent. In 2005, the district’s students 

outperformed the state cohort by 6 percentage points. 

From 2003 to 2009, EL students in Saint Paul Public Schools have consistently outperformed EL students 

statewide on a variety of tests. In the Council of the Great City Schools’ Succeeding with English Language 

Learners report (2009), the district was listed as having made among the best gains of the Great City 

Schools districts in closing the achievement gap between EL and non-EL students (Horwitz, et al., 2009). 
2010). As of early 2010, of the 22 states that have 

been interviewed for the ongoing National 

Evaluation of Title III, only one reported that it 

can directly identify ELs whose formal education 

was interrupted (NET3, 2010). 

Finally, there are tremendous inconsistencies 

within many states in the identification and 

classification of ELs that affect the validity, 

accuracy, and comparability of outcome data 

for the EL subgroup (The Work Group on 

ELL Policy, 2009). States use the ESEA 

definition of a ―limited English proficient‖ 

student, but they vary in their use of specific 

criteria and procedures to formally identify 

students as ELs and to determine when students 

should no longer be designated as ELs. For 

example, at least 20 states allow districts to use 

some amount of local discretion in initially 

identifying students as ELs, and at least 12 states 

allow districts some flexibility in establishing the 

criteria used to determine when students are no 

longer designated as ELs (NET3, 2010). 

years, but only 11 states offer incentives for 

teachers to earn an ESL teaching license 

(Education Week, 2009). 

Many states and districts do not have data 

systems to track ELs over time, and most do 

not maintain some key background variables 

on their EL students, making it difficult to 

use data to improve instruction (NET3, 2010). 

Tracking EL students longitudinally is vital 

because each student’s EL designation and 

achievement levels in reading and mathematics 

change as he or she improves proficiency in

English (The Working Group on ELL Policy, 

2009). Disaggregating performance data by 

―years in program,‖ ―former ELs,‖ and ―students 

with interrupted formal education‖ allows states 

and districts to determine the effectiveness of 

programs for all ELs. However, only 22 states 

and the District of Columbia (out of 41 states 

and the District of Columbia with available data) 

have data systems that could enable them to track 

former ELs beyond the two years of monitoring 

required under current Title III of ESEA (NET3, 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abedi, Jamal (2008). Measuring students’ level of English proficiency: Educational significance and 

assessment requirements. Educational Assessment, 13: 193–214. 

American Institutes for Research and WestEd (2006). Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the 

Education of English Learners, K–12: Findings From a Five-Year Evaluation. Sacramento, Calif.: California 

Department of Education. 

August, Diane, and Timothy Shanahan (eds.) (2006). Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report 

of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates.

Ballantyne, Keira Gebbie, Alicia Sanderman, and Jack Levy (2008). Educating English Language Learners: 

Building Teacher Capacity. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition. Retrieved March 23, 2010 at 

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/EducatingELLsBuildingTeacherCapacityVol1.pdf.

Batalova, Jeanne, Michael Fix, and Julie Murray (2006). Measures of Change: The Demography and Literacy of 

Adolescent English Language Learners. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute.

Education Week (2009). Quality Counts 2009: Portrait of a Population, How English-Language Learners Are 

Putting Schools to the Test. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 28(17).

Gersten, Russell, Scott Baker, Timothy Shanahan, Sylvia Linan-Thompson, Penny Collins, and Robin 

Scarcella (2008). Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary 

Grades: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2007–4011). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. 

Retrieved Feb 10, 2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/?pgid=6. 

Goldenberg, Claude (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does 

not—say. American Educator, 32(2): 8-24, 42-44.

Horwitz, Amanda Rose, Gabriella Uro, Ricki Price-Baugh, Candace Simon, Renata Uzzell, Sharon 

Lewis, and Michael Casserly (2009). Succeeding With English Language Learners: Lessons From the Great 

City Schools. Washington, D.C.: The Council of the Great City Schools. Retrieved on April 23, 2010, 

from http://www.cgcs.org/publications/ELL_Report09.pdf.

National Center for Education Statistics (2009a). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 

2010–451). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,

National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on April 15, 2010, from 

http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010451.

National Center for Education Statistics (2009b). National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP), various years, 1998–2009 Reading Assessments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on 

April 23, 2010, from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/.

NET3 (National Evaluation of Title III) (2010, February). Preliminary data from the NET3 provided to 
the U.S. Department of Education by the American Institutes for Research.

U.S. Department of Education (2009). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume 

VIII—Teacher Quality: Final Report. By Beatrice Birman, Andrea Boyle, Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, 

Amy Elledge, Deborah Holtzman, Mengli Song, Kerri Thomsen, Kirk Walters, and Kwang-Suk 

Yoon. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and 

Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. 

U.S. Department of Education (forthcoming). Title III Accountability: Behind the Numbers, Evaluation Brief: 

The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. By Andrea 

Boyle, James Taylor, Steven Hurlburt, and Kay Soga. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies 

Service. 

The Working Group on ELL Policy (2009). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Recommendations for 

Addressing the Needs of English Language Learners. Palo Alto, Calif.: Author. Retrieved on March 23, 

2010, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/ARRA/.
DIVERSE LEARNERS

Migrant Student Education; Homeless Children and Youths Education; Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youths Education; 

Indian Student Education; Native Hawaiian Student Education and Alaska Native Student Education; Rural Education; Impact Aid

OUR APPROACH

► Continuing our commitment to programs that target historically underserved students or that 

provide funding for districts that are rural or impacted by federal activities.

► Adjusting formulas for homeless and migrant programs so that funds reach the students they 

are meant to serve.

► Better support for rural and high-need students. Put in place appropriate strategies to support

rural and other high-need districts.

► Focusing more on student outcomes for transparency purposes.

► Other minor changes to address long-standing community concerns or implementation 

challenges.

Migrant Student Education

Migrant students face unique and significant 

challenges in school as a result of their 

mobility, poverty, and often limited English 

proficiency. Given their mobility, there is no 

single state or school district that has 

responsibility for migrant students. Program data 

indicate that in the 2007–08 school year, 487,000 

migrant students aged 3–21 were identified for 

funding from the federal program serving 

migrant students. Federally-supported services 

were provided to 268,000 students aged 0–22 

during the regular 2007–08 school year and 

165,000 students during the summer (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010a). 

Under current law, student enrollment data 

used to allocate migrant education funding 

is based on increasingly outdated data. The 

full-time equivalencies (FTEs) used to generate 

each state’s base allocation amount reflect childcount data collected in 2000–01 and FTE 

adjustment factors generated in 1994 (the FTE 

adjustment factors transform the counts into 

FTEs). Even though states have reported 

significant shifts in migrant populations over the 

last nine years, the Department no longer has a 

mechanism in place to update FTE counts and 

adjust state allocations accordingly (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2004; U.S. 

Department of Education, 2006).

Homeless Children and Youths Education

Homeless children and youths face 

significant barriers in enrolling and 

succeeding in school. Frequent moves from 

school to school are a significant barrier to 

academic success. Several factors complicate 

homeless students’ accrual of credits toward 

their graduation. Schools are slow to transfer 

academic and other records and often have 

course requirements that are inconsistent with 

each other. Both are significant obstacles for 

homeless students. In addition, school staff

often are not aware of homeless students’ needs, 

and homeless students have difficulty gaining 

access to special services such as special 

education and gifted and talented programs (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2002).

The current formula for the program serving 
homeless students allocates money based on 

the Title I, Part A, formula, rather than on 

counts of homeless children in a state. The 

Title I, Part A, formula uses a combination of 

formulas and factors to set allocations, which 

generally track poverty rates but go to over 90 

percent of districts (Riddle, 2009). The allocations 

may correlate roughly to the number of homeless 

students in a state or district, but the formula was 

not designed to reflect the number of homeless 

students who will need services.

Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youths 

Education 

Youths served through the Neglected and 

Delinquent Children and Youths Education 

program face significant educational 

challenges, but in recent years have shown 

increases in their academic achievement.

Students served by the current Prevention and 

Intervention Programs for Children and Youth 

who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk are 

typically three years behind in grade level and 

often lack job skills. The program serves 132,000 

neglected and delinquent youths in state 

institutions, developing skills that will assist them 

upon their release (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2010b). Two-thirds (66 percent) of 

the students enrolled in a neglected and 

delinquent youth education program for over 90 

or more consecutive calendar days showed 

improvement in their reading or mathematics 

performance in 2007–08. In addition, increasing 

proportions of these students are earning high 

school course credits (Bardack et al., 2009).

Locally operated institutions for neglected 

and delinquent students do not always 

receive needed funds. Funds under the Local 

Agency Program are not sent directly to the 

locally operated institutions that serve neglected 

and delinquent students. School districts receive 

funds from the state for the Local Agency 

Program based on counts of students in locally 

operated institutions. But the districts are not 

required to provide these funds to the actual 

institutions that serve students. Districts may 

instead operate their own programs, meaning that 

the students who generate funds may not receive 

any educational services as a result of these funds.

Indian Student Education

While the achievement of American Indian 

students has shown some progress, 

achievement gaps persist. Among fourthgraders, 49 percent of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives scored at the Basic or above level 

on the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress in reading in 2007, compared with 78 

percent of White students. Patterns among 

eighth-graders were similar (Lee et al., 2007). 

Moreover, American Indians and Alaska Natives 

are less likely to take advanced coursework or 

attend high schools offering advanced 

coursework, although the proportion of 

American Indians and Alaska Natives completing 

a core academic program increased from 3 

percent in 1982 to 36 percent in 2005 (DeVoe 

and Darling-Churchill, 2008).

Native language and cultural programs in 

schools are associated with improved 

academic performance and a variety of other 

important benefits. As of 2006, about 20 

percent of Native children ages 5–17 spoke a 

language other than English at home, and 3 

percent spoke English with difficulty (DeVoe and 

Darling-Churchill, 2008). When the school values 

and incorporates students' native languages in the 

curriculum, there is increased student self-esteem, 

less anxiety, and greater student belief in their 

own capabilities (Hakuta, 2001). In addition,

young language speakers participate in tribal 

ceremonies and public events, thereby 

contributing vitality to their communities. Family 

participation and intergenerational connections 

are built for a lifetime and create positive 

networks that build Native communities (Kipp, 
2000). On an individual basis, Native students 

develop stronger identities, knowledge of their 

tribal cultures and their individual role in and 

deep appreciation for that culture (Peacock and 

Day, 1999). Increasing the numbers of tribes 

eligible to apply for federal funds—replacing the 

local educational agency (LEA) as the grant 

recipient—would result in increased 

communication and coordination between the 

tribe and LEA and would allow the tribe to focus 

additional resources on Indian students to 

address their unique educational and culturally 

related academic needs. In 2009, the Department 

of Education funded 21 tribes in place of 43 

LEAs that did not apply for funds (U.S 

Department of Education, 2010a).

Native Hawaiian Student Education and Alaska 

Native Student Education

Gaps exist in the academic performance of 

Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native students 

compared to other students in their 

respective states. In 2009, 45 percent of Native 

Hawaiian students demonstrated proficiency in 

reading, and 26 percent were proficient in math, 

compared with 62 percent and 42 percent, 

respectively, of the general Hawaiian student 

population. Similarly, 57 percent of Alaska 

Natives met the proficient level on the state’s 

fourth-grade reading assessment, compared with 

78 percent of all fourth-graders in the state, based 

on the 2009 Alaska assessment. Similar gaps were 

found among eighth-grade Alaska Native 

students and their in-state peers (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010a). In addition, 

the high school dropout rate among Alaska 

Natives of 8.5 percent in 2007–08 was higher 

than the 5.3 percent statewide rate (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010 and State of 

Alaska, 2010). Alaska’s vast geography and the 

remote locations in which many Alaska Native 

students reside contribute to the challenges in 

serving Alaska Native students (U.S. Department 

of Education, 2010a).

Rural Education

Rural districts serve one-fifth of the nation’s 

students (Schneider, 2006). They face unique 

structural, human capital, capacity, and

resource constraints that affect their ability to 

provide the best education for their students.

Even after adjusting for geographic cost 

differences, rural public school teachers earned 

less, on average, in 2003–04 than teachers in 

other locations. Rural schools report difficulty 

finding teachers to teach English as a Second 

Language and they are much less likely to offer 

Advanced Placement or International 

Baccalaureate courses than schools in cities or 

suburbs (Provasnik et al., 2007). Rural 

superintendents often do not have the capacity to 

apply and compete for competitive grants 

without technical assistance (Rural Education 

Issues Group, 2009).

Flexibility will allow rural districts to identify 

the most serious problems facing schools and 

students and determine how to solve them.

The Rural Education Achievement Program 

(REAP) includes two separate programs: the 

Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 

Program and the Rural and Low-Income School 

(RLIS) Program. Currently, rural districts that are 

eligible for SRSA are also eligible to exercise 

flexibility (called REAP Flex) in using funds 

received under certain other federal education 

programs. In FY 2005, more than half of eligible 

SRSA districts participated in REAP Flex. The 

flexibility was most often used to provide 

additional funds for services under Title I, Part A. 

Districts also commonly used REAP Flex to 

focus on programs related to innovation, 

educational technology, teacher quality, and safe 

and drug-free schools and communities. Districts 

focused their efforts on targeting low-performing 

student subgroups and raising reading and math 
outcomes through improvements in technology 

and teacher quality (U.S. Department of Education, 

2007).

Updating the method used to identify rural 

districts will lead to better targeting of funds. 

The revised National Center for Education 

Statistics locale codes reflect that different types of 

rural districts face unique challenges. Unlike the 

previous locale codes that differentiated towns and 

rural areas on the basis of population size, the new 

typology classifies towns and rural areas according 

to their proximity to larger urban cores. This 

method considers potential spatial relationships and 

acknowledges the likely interaction between urban 

cores based on their relative locations. The explicit 

distance indicators offer the opportunity to identify 

and differentiate rural schools and school systems 

in relatively remote areas, from those that may be 

located just outside an urban core (National Center 

for Education Statistics, 2010).

Impact Aid

The nation’s 930,000 students residing on 

federal lands (military and civilian) and 

Indian lands or whose parents work on 

federal property represent an additional 

expense for local school districts 

responsible for educating them, as these 

lands are exempt from local property taxes—a 

primary revenue source for school districts 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Impact 

Aid provides significant formula grant support 

designed to compensate districts for the 

expense of educating federally connected 

children and for the presence in their districts of 

tax-exempt federal property or other property 

removed from the tax rolls by the federal 

government.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, Michael, John Newman, Barbara Gaddy, and Ceri Dean (2005). A look at the condition of rural 

education research: Setting a difference for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 

20(6): 1–25.

Bardack Sarah, Dory Seidel, and Stephanie Lampron (2009). Annual Performance Report for School Year 

2007–08: Program for the Education of Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk of 

Educational Failure. Washington, D.C.: National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the 

Education of Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk (NDTAC).

Coladarci, Theodore (2007). Improving the yield of rural education research: An editor’s swan song. 

Research in Rural Education, 22(3): 1–9.

Devoe, Jill Fleury, and Kristen Darling-Churchill (2008). Status and Trends in the Education of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives: 2008 (NCES 2008–084). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved 

April 23, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008084_1.pdf.

Hakuta, Kenji (April 13, 2001). The Education of Language Minority Students. Testimony before the United 

States Commission on Civil Rights. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University.

Kipp, Darrell (2000). Commitment to language-based education. In Maenette Benham and Joanne 

Cooper (eds.), Indigenous Educational Models for Contemporary Practice: In Our Mother's Voice. London: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Lee, Jihyun, Wendy Grigg, and Patricia Donahue (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007 (NCES 

2007–496). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,

National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from

http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007496. 

National Center for Education Statistics (2010). Common Core of Data (CCD)—Identification of rural 

locales. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,

National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp.

Peacock, Thomas, and Donald Day (1999). Teaching American Indian and Alaska Native Languages in the 

Schools: What Has Been Learned (ED438155). Charleston, W.V.: ERIC Digest of the ERIC 

Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from 

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/0c/

cb.pdf. 

Provasnik Stephen, Angelina Kewal Ramani, Mary McLaughlin Coleman, Lauren Gilbertson, Will 

Herring, and Qingshu Xie (2007). Status of Education in Rural America (NCES 2007–040). 

Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007040.pdf.
Riddle, Wayne (2009). Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of Issues for the ESEA Title I-A Allocation 

Formulas. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.

Rural Education Issues Group (2009). Issues discussed at White House meeting on rural education. 

Retrieved February 24, 2010, from http://www.ruraledu.org/user_uploads/file/

REIG_20090522_White HouseMeeting.pdf.

Schneider, Mark (April 27, 2006). NCES identification of rural locales. From A Presentation to the Secretary 

of Education’s Rural Education Task Force. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute 

of Education Sciences.

State of Alaska, Department of Education and Early Development (2010). 2007–08 Report Card to the 

Public. Juneau: Author. Retrieved February 24, 2010, from 

http://www.eed.state.ak.us/DOE_Rolodex/schools/ReportCard/RCSearch.cfm.

U.S. Department of Education (2010a). Extant data, obtained March 5, 2010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Indian 

Education.

U.S. Department of Education (2010b). Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity: Fiscal Year 2011 

Budget Request. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/justifications/b-aaee.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education (2007). Evaluation of Flexibility Under No Child Left Behind: Volume III—The 

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP Flex). By Gayle Christensen, Ary Amerikaner, Daniel 

Klasik, and Sarah Cohodes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. 

U.S. Department of Education (2006). Migrant Education Program Annual Report: Eligibility, Participation and 

Services (2001–02) and Achievement (2002–03). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

U.S. Department of Education (2004). Title I Migrant Education Program, National Trends Report: 1998–

2001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. 

U.S. Department of Education (2002). The Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program: Learning to 

Succeed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning 

and Evaluation Service.