United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Committee on 

Education and Labor, House of 

Representatives

NO CHILD LEFT 

BEHIND ACT 

Education Assistance Could 

Help States Better Measure 

Progress of Students with 

Limited English Proficiency 

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT

Friday, March 23, 2007

 

GAO-07-646T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 2007

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

Education Assistance Could Help States 

Better Measure Progress of Students with 

Limited English Proficiency 

Highlights of GAO-07-646T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood, Elementary and Secondary 

Education, Committee on Education and 

Labor, House of Representatives 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

(NCLBA) focused attention on the 

academic achievement of more than

5 million students with limited

English proficiency. Obtaining valid

test results for these students is

challenging, given their language 

barriers. This testimony describes 

(1) the extent to which these 

students are meeting annual

academic progress goals, (2) what 

states have done to ensure the 

validity of their academic 

assessments, (3) what states are 

doing to ensure the validity of their 

English language proficiency

assessments, and (4) how the U.S. 

Department of Education 

(Education) is supporting states’ 

efforts to meet NCLBA’s assessment 

requirements for these students. 

This testimony is based on a July

2006 report (GAO-06-815). To collect 

the information for this report, we 

convened a group of experts and 

studied five states (California, 

Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, 

and Texas). We also conducted a

state survey and reviewed state and 

Education documents. 

What GAO Recommends

The GAO report recommended that 

Education (1) support research on 

accommodations, (2) identify and

provide technical support states need

to ensure the validity of academic 

assessments, (3) publish additional 

guidance on requirements for 

assessing English language 

proficiency, and (4) explore ways to 

provide additional flexibility for 

measuring annual progress for these 

students. Education generally agreed

with our recommendations and has 

taken a number of steps to address 

them.

In nearly two-thirds of 48 states for which we obtained data, students with 

limited English proficiency did not meet state proficiency goals for language

arts or mathematics in school year 2003-2004. Further, in most states, these 

students generally did not perform as well as other student groups on state 

mathematics tests for elementary students. 

Officials in our five study states reported taking steps to follow generally 

accepted test development procedures to ensure the validity and reliability 

of academic tests for these students. However, our group of experts 

expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing these students in 

a valid manner, noting that some states lack technical expertise. Further, 

Education’s completed peer reviews of assessments in 38 states found that 

25 states did not provide adequate evidence of their validity or reliability. To 

improve the validity of these test results, most states offer accommodations, 

such as a bilingual dictionary. However, our experts reported that research 

is lacking on what accommodations are effective in mitigating language

barriers. Several states used native language or alternate assessments for 

students with limited English proficiency, but these tests are costly to 

develop and are not appropriate for all students. 

Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments in 

2006 to meet NCLBA requirements, and, as a result, complete information on 

their validity and reliability is not yet available. In 2006, 22 states used tests

developed by one of four state consortia. Officials in our study states 

reported taking steps to ensure the validity of these tests. However, a 2005 

Education-funded review of 17 English language proficiency tests found 

insufficient documentation of their validity. 

Education has offered a variety of technical assistance to help states assess

students with limited English proficiency. However, Education has issued 

little written guidance to states on developing English language proficiency 

tests. Officials in about one-third of the 33 states we contacted told us they 

wanted more guidance about how to develop tests that meet NCLBA 

requirements. Education has offered states some flexibility in how they 

assess students with limited English proficiency, but officials in our study 

states told us that additional flexibility is needed to ensure that progress

measures appropriately track the academic progress of these students. Since 

our report was published, Education has initiated a partnership with the 

states and other organizations to support the development of valid 

assessment options for students with limited English proficiency. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-646T.

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 ashbyc@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to present information from our July 2006 

report on the assessment requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLBA) as they pertain to students with limited English proficiency.1

 An 

estimated 5 million children with limited English proficiency were enrolled 

in U.S. public schools during the 2003-2004 school year, representing about 

10 percent of the total school population. They speak over 400 languages, 

with almost 80 percent of students with limited English proficiency 

speaking Spanish. These students often have language difficulties that 

interfere with their ability to succeed in school and, prior to NCLBA, were 

often excluded from statewide assessments. NCLBA’s requirements have 

brought to the surface a number of challenges to assessing the academic 

performance of these students in a valid and reliable manner (that is, the 

assessment measures what it is designed to measure in a consistent 

manner). 

Congress passed NCLBA with the goal of increasing academic 

achievement and closing achievement gaps. NCLBA required states to 

demonstrate that all students have reached the “proficient” level on a 

state’s language arts and mathematics assessments by 2014, and states 

must demonstrate “adequate yearly progress” toward this goal each year.

In addition, students from groups that traditionally underperform, 

including students with limited English proficiency, must meet the same 

academic progress goals as other students. For the first time, NCLBA also 

required states to annually assess the English proficiency of these students 

and to demonstrate that they are making progress toward becoming 

proficient in English. 

My testimony today will focus on (1) the extent to which students with 

limited English proficiency are meeting adequate yearly progress goals, 

(2) what states have done to ensure that results from language arts and 

mathematics assessments are valid and reliable for students with limited 

English proficiency, (3) how states are assessing English proficiency and 

what they are doing to address the validity and reliability of these 

assessment results, and (4) how the Department of Education (Education) 

is supporting states’ efforts to meet NCLBA’s assessment requirements for 

 1

GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States Better 

Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency, GAO-06-815 

(Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006). 

Page 1 GAO-07-646T 
these students. The information being presented today is from our July 

2006 report. 

In summary, students with limited English proficiency did not meet state 

proficiency goals on language arts and mathematics tests in nearly twothirds of 48 states for which we obtained data in the 2003-2004 school year. 

Officials in 5 states we studied reported taking steps to follow generally

accepted test development procedures to ensure the validity and reliability 

of their academic tests for students with limited English proficiency. 

However, a group of experts we consulted expressed concerns about 

whether all states were assessing these students in a valid manner. These 

experts noted that some states lack the technical expertise needed to 

ensure the validity of tests for these students. As evidence of the 

challenges states face, Education’s completed peer reviews of 38 states 

found that 25 did not provide adequate evidence on the validity or 

reliability of test results for these students. We also found that, as allowed 

under law, most states offer accommodations, such as a bilingual 

dictionary, to these students in order to improve the validity of language 

arts and mathematics test results. However, our experts reported that 

research is lacking on what accommodations are effective for these 

students. With respect to English language proficiency assessments, many 

states were implementing new tests in 2006 to meet NCLBA requirements, 

and as a result, complete information on their validity and reliability was 

not available at the time of our review. Education has offered a variety of

technical assistance to help states assess students with limited English 

proficiency. However, Education has issued little written guidance to

states on developing English language proficiency tests. Officials in about 

one-third of the 33 states we contacted told us they wanted more guidance

about how to develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements. 

To help states assess students with limited English proficiency in a valid 

and reliable manner, our recent report included several recommendations. 

Education agreed with most of the report’s recommendations and has 

taken a number of steps to address them. Specifically, Education has 

initiated a partnership with the states and other organizations to support 

the development of valid assessment options for students with limited 

English proficiency. 

To determine the extent to which students with limited English 

proficiency were meeting adequate yearly progress goals, we collected

school year 2003-2004 state-level data for 48 states, including the District 

of Columbia. With regard to assessments, we studied the testing practices

of 5 states in depth (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and 

Page 2 GAO-07-646T 
Texas). We also directly contacted officials in 28 states to discuss their 

English language proficiency assessments and Education’s guidance 

regarding these assessments. Further, we convened a group of experts to 

discuss states’ efforts to implement valid and reliable academic 

assessments for students with limited English proficiency. These experts 

had significant technical and research expertise in assessment issues, and 

some had conducted research focused on students with limited English 

proficiency. We also interviewed Education officials and reviewed relevant 

Education documents. Finally, we interviewed officials from major test 

development companies and state consortia that are developing English 

language proficiency assessments and used a short e-mail survey to obtain 

information from the 50 states and the District of Columbia on their use of

native language assessments. We conducted the review in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Students with limited English proficiency are a diverse and complex 

group. They speak many languages and have a tremendous range of 

educational needs and include refugees with little formal schooling and 

students who are literate in their native languages. Accurately assessing 

the academic knowledge of these students in English is challenging. If a 

student responds incorrectly to a test item, it may not be clear if the 

student did not know the answer or misunderstood the question because 

of language barriers. 

Background 

Title I of NCLBA requires states to administer tests in language arts and 

mathematics to all students in certain grades and to use these tests as the 

primary means of determining the annual performance of states, districts, 

and schools. These assessments must be aligned with the state’s academic 

standards—that is, they must measure how well a student has 

demonstrated his or her knowledge of the academic content represented 

in these standards. States are to show that increasing percentages of 

students are reaching the proficient level on these state tests over time. 

NCLBA also requires that students with limited English proficiency receive 

reasonable accommodations and be assessed, to the extent practicable, in 

the language and form most likely to yield accurate data on their academic 

knowledge. In addition, for language arts, students with limited English 

proficiency who have been in U.S. schools for 3 years or more must 

generally be assessed in English. Finally, NCLBA also created a new 

requirement for states to annually assess the English language proficiency 

of students identified as having limited English proficiency. 

Page 3 GAO-07-646T 
Accurately assessing the academic knowledge of students with limited 

English proficiency has become more critical because NCLBA designated

specific groups of students for particular focus. These four groups are 

students who (1) are economically disadvantaged, (2) represent major 

racial and ethnic groups, (3) have disabilities, and (4) are limited in 

English proficiency. These groups are not mutually exclusive, so that the 

results for a student who is economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, and has 

limited English proficiency could be counted in three groups. States and 

school districts are required to measure the progress of all students in 

meeting academic proficiency goals, as well as to measure separately the 

progress of these designated groups. To make adequate yearly progress, 

each district and school must generally show that each of these groups 

met the state proficiency goal and that at least 95 percent of students in 

each group participated in these assessments.2

 Students with limited 

English proficiency are a unique group under NCLBA because once they 

attain English proficiency they are no longer counted as part this group, 

although Education has given states some flexibility in this area. 

Recognizing that language barriers can hinder the assessment of students 

who have been in the country for a short time, Education has provided 

some testing flexibility.3

 Specifically, Education does not require students 

with limited English proficiency to participate in a state’s language arts 

assessment during their first year in U.S. schools. In addition, while these 

students must take a state’s mathematics assessment during their first 

year, a state may exclude their scores in determining whether it met its 

progress goals. 

Title III of NCLBA focuses specifically on students with limited English 

proficiency, with the purpose of ensuring that these students attain 

English proficiency and meet the same academic standards as other 

 2

To be deemed as having made adequate yearly progress for a given year, each district and 

school must show that the requisite percentage of each designated student group, as well 

as the student population as a whole, met the state proficiency goal. Further, schools must

also demonstrate that they have met state targets on other academic indicators, such as 

graduation rates or attendance. Alternatively, a district or school can make adequate yearly 

progress through the “safe harbor” provision if the percentage of students in a group 

considered not proficient decreased by at least 10 percent from the preceding year and the

group made progress on one of the state’s other academic indicators. States also use 

statistical procedures, such as confidence intervals, to improve the reliability of the results

used to determine adequate yearly progress. 

3

On September 13, 2006, Education issued a final regulation on this flexibility. 71 Fed. Reg. 

54188 (Sept. 13, 2006). 

Page 4 GAO-07-646T 
students. This title holds states and districts accountable for student 

progress in attaining English proficiency by requiring states to establish 

goals to demonstrate annual increases in both the number of students 

attaining English proficiency and the number making progress in learning 

English. States must establish English language proficiency standards that

are aligned with a state’s academic standards in order to ensure that 

students are acquiring the academic language they need to successfully 

participate in the classroom. Education also requires that a state’s English

language proficiency assessment be aligned to its English language 

proficiency standards. While NCLBA requires states to administer 

academic assessments to students in some grades, it requires states to 

administer English language proficiency assessments annually to all 

students with limited English proficiency, from kindergarten to grade 12.

In nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained data, students

with limited English proficiency did not meet state proficiency goals in the 

2003-2004 school year. Students with limited English proficiency met goals

in language arts and mathematics in 17 states.4

 In 31 states, these students 

missed the goals either for language arts or for both language arts and 

mathematics (see fig. 1). In 21 states, the percentage of proficient students 

in this group was below both the mathematics and the language arts 

proficiency goals. 

Students with Limited 

English Proficiency 

Performed below 

Progress Goals in 

2004 in Almost TwoThirds of States 

 4

In 7 of the 17 states, students with limited English proficiency met a state’s adequate 

yearly progress goals through NCLBA’s safe harbor provision—that is, by decreasing the 

percentage of students scoring nonproficient by 10 percent or more and showing progress 

on another academic indicator. 

Page 5 GAO-07-646T 
Figure 1: School Year 2003-2004 Comparison of Percentage of Students with Limited English Proficiency Who Achieved

Proficient Scores in Language Arts and Mathematics with State-Established Progress Goals 

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak.

Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

W.Va. Va.

Ky.

Source: State 2003−2004 report cards available on state Web sites or data provided by state officials.

S.C.

Tenn.

Students with limited English proficiency did not meet adequate yearly progress goals (31)

Students with limited English proficiency met adequate yearly progress goals (17)

State did not provide data (3)

Notes: We obtained data for 42 states from their state Web sites and contacted state officials in 

6 states to obtain these data. Three states did not report data in a format that allowed us to determine 

whether the percentage of students with limited English proficiency met or exceeded the annual 

progress goals established by the state. 

When states reported proficiency data for different grades or groups of grades, we determined that 

students with limited English proficiency met a state’s progress goals if the student group met all 

proficiency and participation goals for all grades reported. An Education official told us that a state 

could not make adequate yearly progress if it missed one of the progress goals at any grade level. 

Page 6 GAO-07-646T 
All of the states on the map where the proficiency percentage for students with limited English 

proficiency met or exceeded the state’s annual progress goal also met NCLBA’s participation goals. 

We incorporated states’ use of confidence intervals and NCLBA’s safe harbor provision in 

determining whether the percentage of students with limited English proficiency achieving proficient 

scores met or exceeded a state’s progress goals. If a state’s published data did not explicitly include 

such information, we contacted state officials to ensure that the state did not meet its progress goals 

through the use of confidence intervals or through NCLBA’s safe harbor provision. In the following 7 

states, the percentage of students with limited English proficiency was below the state’s annual 

progress goal for language arts or for both language arts and mathematics, but the student group met 

the state’s requirements for progress through the safe harbor provision: Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah. 

We reported 2004–2005 school year data for Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Utah because we could 

not obtain data for the 2003-2004 school year. Data from Iowa, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are

for the 2002-2004 school years. 

Rhode Island did not separately report participation rates for students with limited English proficiency. 

Instead, it reported that all students met the 95 percent participation goal. 

We found that the percentage of elementary school students with limited 

English proficiency achieving proficient scores on the state’s mathematics 

assessment was lower than that for the total student population in 48 of 

49 states that reported to Education in school year 2003-2004. We also 

found that, in general, a lower percentage of students with limited English 

proficiency achieved proficient test scores than other selected student 

groups. All of the 49 states reported that these students achieved lower 

rates of proficiency than white students.5

 The performance of limited 

English proficient students relative to the other student groups varied. In

37 states, for example, economically disadvantaged students outperformed 

students with limited English proficiency, while students with disabilities 

outperformed these students in 14 states. 

 5

Student groups are not mutually exclusive, with each of the ethnic and racial categories 

probably including some number of students with limited English proficiency. For

example, the results for a student who is both white and limited English proficient would 

be included in both groups. 

Page 7 GAO-07-646T 
Officials in the 5 states we studied reported that they have taken steps to 

address challenges associated with academic assessments of students with 

limited English proficiency. However, Education’s peer reviews of 

38 states found a number of concerns in assessing these students. Our 

group of experts indicated that states are generally not taking the 

appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create valid and reliable 

assessments for students with limited English proficiency. To increase 

validity and reliability, most states offered accommodations to students, 

such as providing extra time to complete the test and offering native 

language assessments. However, offering accommodations may or may 

not improve the validity of test results, as research in this area is lacking.

Selected States 

Considered Language 

Issues when 

Developing Academic 

Assessments, but 

Validity and 

Reliability Concerns 

Remain 

States Reported Efforts to 

Improve Validity of 

Assessment Results for 

Students with Limited 

English Proficiency 

Officials in 5 states we studied reported taking some steps to address 

challenges associated with assessing students with limited English 

proficiency. Officials in 4 of these states reported following generally 

accepted test development procedures, while a Nebraska official reported 

that the state expects districts to follow such procedures. 

Officials in California, New York, North Carolina, and Texas told us that 

they try to implement the principles of universal design, which support 

making assessments accessible to the widest possible range of students. 

This is done by ensuring that instructions, forms, and questions are clear 

and not more linguistically complex than necessary. In addition, officials 

in some states reported assembling committees to review test items for 

bias. For example, when developing mathematics items, these states try to

make language as clear as possible to ensure that the item is measuring 

primarily mathematical concepts and to minimize the extent to which it is 

measuring language proficiency. A mathematics word problem involving 

subtraction, for example, might refer to fish rather than barracuda. 

Officials in 3 of our study states told us they also used a statistical 

approach to evaluate test items for bias related to students with limited 

English proficiency. 

Page 8 GAO-07-646T 
Education’s completed NCLBA peer reviews of 38 states6

 found that 25 did

not provide sufficient evidence on the validity or reliability of results for 

students with limited English proficiency. For example, in Idaho, peer 

reviewers commented that the state did not report reliability data for 

students with limited English proficiency. As of March 2007, 18 states have 

had their assessment systems fully approved by Education.7

Both Education’s Peer 

Reviews and Our Group of 

Experts Raised Concerns 

Regarding State Efforts to 

Ensure Valid and Reliable 

Assessment Results 

Our group of experts indicated that states are generally not taking the 

appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create valid and reliable 

assessments for these students and identified essential steps that should 

be taken. These experts noted that no state has implemented an 

assessment program for students with limited English proficiency that is 

consistent with technical standards. They noted that students with limited 

English proficiency are not defined consistently within and across states, 

which is a crucial first step to ensuring reliability. If the language 

proficiency levels of these students are classified inconsistently, an 

assessment may produce results that appear inconsistent because of the

variable classifications rather than actual differences in skills. Further, it 

appears that many states do not conduct separate analyses for different 

groups of limited English proficient students. Our group of experts 

indicated that the reliability of a test may be different for heterogeneous 

groups of students, such as students who are literate in their native 

language and those who are not. Further, these experts noted that states 

are not always explicit about whether an assessment is attempting to 

measure skills only (such as mathematics) or mathematics skills as 

expressed in English. According to the group, a fundamental issue 

affecting the validity of a test is the definition of what is being measured. 

The expert group emphasized that determining the validity and reliability 

of academic assessments for students with limited English proficiency is 

complicated and requires a comprehensive collection of evidence rather 

than a single analysis. In addition, the appropriate combination of analyses 

will vary from state to state, depending on the characteristics of the 

student population and the type of assessment. The group indicated that 

 6

As of July 2006, Education had conducted peer reviews of 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. However, detailed peer review notes were available from only 38 states at the 

time of our review. 

7

Education’s approval is pending for 29 states, while approval is expected for an additional 

3 states. Mississippi has received a waiver from peer review approval for 1 year due to 

Hurricane Katrina. 

Page 9 GAO-07-646T 
states are not universally using all the appropriate analyses to evaluate the 

validity and reliability of test results for students with limited English 

proficiency. These experts indicated that some states may need assistance 

to conduct appropriate analyses. Finally, they indicated that reducing 

language complexity is essential to developing valid assessments for these 

students, but expressed concern that some states and test developers do 

not have a strong understanding of universal design principles or how to 

use them to develop assessments that eliminate language barriers to 

measuring specific skills. 

Accommodations Can 

Increase Validity of 

Assessment Results, but 

Research on Appropriate 

Use Is Limited 

The majority of states offered some accommodations to try to increase the 

validity and reliability of assessment results for students with limited 

English proficiency. These accommodations are intended to permit 

students to demonstrate their academic knowledge, despite limited 

language ability. Our review of state Web sites found documentation on 

accommodations for 42 states. The number of accommodations offered 

varied considerably among states. The most common accommodations 

were allowing the use of a bilingual dictionary and reading test items 

aloud in English (see table 1). Some states also administered assessments 

to small groups of students or individuals, while others gave students extra 

time to complete a test. 

Table 1: Most Frequently Cited Accommodations in 42 States 

Accommodation Number of states

Bilingual dictionary 32

Reading items aloud in English 32

Small group administration 29

Extra time 27

Individual administration 27

Separate location 25

Extra breaks 25

Directions in student’s native language 24

Source: GAO review of state documentation. 

According to our expert group and our review of literature, research is 

lacking on what specific accommodations are appropriate for students 

with limited English proficiency, as well as their effectiveness in 

improving the validity of assessment results. A 2004 review of state 

policies found that few studies focus on accommodations intended to 

Page 10 GAO-07-646T 
address the linguistic needs of students with limited English proficiency or 

on how accommodations affect the performance of students with limited 

English proficiency.8

 In contrast, significantly more research has been 

conducted on accommodations for students with disabilities, much of it 

funded by Education. Because of this research disparity, our group of 

experts reported that some states offer accommodations to students with 

limited English proficiency based on those they offer to students with 

disabilities, without determining their appropriateness for individual 

students. They noted the importance of considering individual student 

characteristics to ensure that an accommodation appropriately addresses 

the needs of the student.

Native Language and 

Alternate Assessments 

May Improve the Validity 

of Results but Are 

Challenging to Implement 

In our survey, 16 states reported that they offered statewide native 

language assessments in language arts or mathematics in some grades for 

certain students with limited English proficiency in the 2004-2005 school

year. For example, New York translated its statewide mathematics 

assessments into Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Korean, and Haitian-Creole. 

In addition, 3 states were developing or planning to develop a native 

language assessment. 

Our group of experts told us that this type of assessment is difficult and 

costly to develop. Development of a valid native language assessment 

involves more than a simple translation of the original test. In most 

situations, a process of test development and validation similar to that of

the nontranslated test is recommended. In addition, the administration of 

native language assessments may not be practicable, for example, when 

only a small percentage of limited English proficient students in the state 

speak a particular language or when a state’s student population has many 

languages. Members of our expert group told us that native language 

assessments are generally an effective accommodation only for students in 

specific circumstances, such as students who are instructed in their native

language or are literate in their native language. 

Thirteen states offered statewide alternate assessments (such as reviewing 

a student’s classroom work portfolio) in 2005 for certain students with 

limited English proficiency, as of March 2006. Our expert group noted that 

 8

Charlene Rivera and Eric Collum. An Analysis of State Assessment Policies Addressing 

the Accommodation of English Language Learners. The George Washington University 

Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, Arlington, Virginia: (January 2004). 

Page 11 GAO-07-646T 
alternate assessments are difficult and expensive to develop, and may not

be feasible because of the amount of time required for such an 

assessment. Members of the group also expressed concern about the 

extent to which these assessments are objective and comparable and can 

be aggregated with regular assessments. 

Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments 

for the 2005-2006 school year to meet Education’s requirement for states 

to administer English language proficiency tests that meet NCLBA 

requirements by the spring of 2006.9

 These assessments must allow states 

to track student progress in learning English. Additionally, Education 

requires that these assessments be aligned to a state’s English language 

proficiency standards. Education officials said that because many states 

did not have tests that met NCLBA requirements, the agency funded four 

state consortia to develop new assessments that were to be aligned with 

state standards and measure student progress. 

In the 2005-2006 school year, 22 states used assessments or test items 

developed by one of four state consortia, making this the most common 

approach taken by states. Eight states worked with test developers to 

augment off-the-shelf English language proficiency assessments to 

incorporate state standards. Officials in 14 states indicated that they are 

administering off-the-shelf assessments. Seven states, including Texas, 

Minnesota, and Kansas, created their own English language proficiency 

assessments. Officials in these states said they typically worked with a test 

developer or research organization to create the assessments. 

Most States 

Implemented New 

English Language 

Proficiency 

Assessments but 

Faced Challenges 

Establishing Their 

Validity 

Officials in our study states and test developers we interviewed reported 

that they commonly apply generally accepted test development 

procedures to develop their assessments, but some are still in the process 

of documenting their validity and reliability. A 2005 review of the 

documentation of 17 English proficiency assessments used by 33 states 

found that the evidence on validity and reliability was generally 

insufficient.10 The study, which was funded by Education, noted that none 

 9

Education officials told us that the agency has approved an extension of this deadline for 1 

state and is currently considering extension requests from 2 other states. 

10Stanley Rabinowitz and Edynn Sato, “Evidence-Based Plan: Technical Adequacy of 

Assessments for Alternate Student Populations: A Technical Review of High-Stakes

Assessments for English Language Learners,” WestEd (December 2005). 

Page 12 GAO-07-646T 
of the assessments contained “sufficient technical evidence to support the 

high-stakes accountability information and conclusions of student 

readiness they are meant to provide.” 

Education has offered states a variety of technical assistance to help them

appropriately assess students with limited English proficiency, such as 

providing training and expert reviews of their assessment systems. 

However, Education has issued little written guidance on how states are 

expected to assess and track the English proficiency of these students, 

leaving state officials unclear about Education’s expectations. While 

Education has offered states some flexibility in how they incorporate 

these students into their accountability systems, many of the state and 

district officials we interviewed indicated that additional flexibility is 

needed to ensure that academic progress of these students is accurately 

measured. 

Education Has 

Provided Assistance, 

but States Reported 

Need for Additional 

Guidance and 

Flexibility 

Education Has Provided a 

Variety of Support on 

Assessment Issues but 

Little Written Guidance on 

Assessing Students with 

Limited English 

Proficiency 

Education offers support in a variety of ways to help states meet NCLBA’s 

assessment requirements for students with limited English proficiency. 

The department’s primary technical assistance efforts have included the

following: 

• Title I peer reviews of states’ academic standards and assessment 

systems: During these reviews, experts review evidence provided by 

the state about the validity and reliability of these assessments. 

Education shares information from the peer review to help states 

address issues identified during the review. 

• Title III monitoring visits: Education began conducting site visits to 

review state compliance with Title III requirements in 2005. As part of 

these visits, the department reviews the state’s progress in developing

English language proficiency assessments that meet NCLBA 

requirements. 

• Comprehensive centers: Education has contracted with 16 regional 

comprehensive centers to build state capacity to help districts that are 

not meeting their adequate yearly progress goals. At least 3 of these 

centers plan to assist individual states in developing appropriate goals 

for student progress in learning English. In 2005, Education also funded 

an assessment and accountability comprehensive center, which 

provides technical assistance related to the assessment of students, 

including those with limited English proficiency. 

Page 13 GAO-07-646T 
• Ongoing technical assistance for English language proficiency 

assessments: Education has provided information and ongoing 

technical assistance to states using a variety of tools and has focused 

specifically on the development of the English language proficiency 

standards and assessments required by NCLBA. 

While providing this technical assistance, Education has issued little 

written guidance on developing English language proficiency assessments

that meet NCLBA’s requirements and on tracking the progress of students 

in acquiring English. Education issued some limited nonregulatory 

guidance on NCLBA’s basic requirements for English language proficiency 

standards and assessments in February 2003. 

However, officials in about one-third of the 33 states we contacted 

expressed uncertainty about implementing these requirements. They told 

us that they would like more specific guidance from Education to help 

them develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements, generally focusing on

two issues. First, some officials said they were unsure about how to align

English language proficiency standards with content standards for 

language arts, mathematics, and science, as required by NCLBA. Second, 

some officials reported that they did not know how to use the different 

scores from their old and new English language proficiency assessments 

to track student progress. Without guidance and specific examples on both 

of these issues, some of these officials were concerned that they will 

spend time and resources developing an assessment that may not meet 

Education’s requirements. Education officials told us that they were 

currently developing additional nonregulatory guidance on these issues, 

but it had not yet been finalized. 

Education Has Offered 

Different Accountability 

Options for Students with 

Limited English 

Proficiency, but State 

Officials Reported 

Additional Flexibility Is 

Needed 

Education has offered states several flexibilities in tracking academic 

progress goals for students with limited English proficiency to support 

their efforts to develop appropriate accountability systems for these 

students. For example, students who have been in U.S. schools for less 

than a year do not have to meet the same testing requirements as other 

students. Another flexibility recognizes that limited English proficiency is

a more transient quality than being of a particular race. Students who 

achieve English proficiency leave the group at the point when they 

demonstrate their academic knowledge in English, while new students 

with lower English proficiency are constantly entering the group (see 

fig. 2). Given the group’s continually changing composition, meeting 

progress goals may be more difficult than doing so for other student 

groups, especially in districts serving large numbers of these students. 

Page 14 GAO-07-646T 
Consequently, Education allowed states to include, for up to 2 years, the 

scores of students who were formerly classified as limited English 

proficient when determining whether a state met its progress goals for 

students with limited English proficiency. 

Page 15 GAO-07-646T 
Figure 2: Movement of Students In and Out of Limited English Proficient Student Group and Other Student Groups

Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion images.

Students with limited English proficiency

Students leave group once they acquire English 

proficiency and are more likely to have language skills 

to demonstrate academic knowledge on state tests

Students 

acquire English 

proficiency and 

leave student 

group

Students 

transfer out 

of school

Students 

drop out 

of school

Students 

graduate

New students enroll 

in school

SCHOOL

Students transfer out 

of school

Students drop out 

of school

Students graduate

New students enroll 

in school

SCHOOL

 Other student groups (students of different 

 ethnic groups, with disabilities, or 

 who are economically disadvantaged)

Students generally remain in group until 

they leave school

Several state and local officials in our study states told us that additional 

flexibility would be helpful to ensure that the annual progress measures 

provide meaningful information about the performance of students with 

limited English proficiency. Officials in 4 of the states we studied 

suggested that certain students with limited English proficiency should be 

Page 16 GAO-07-646T 
exempt from testing or have their test results excluded for longer periods 

than is currently allowed. Several officials voiced concern that some of 

these students have such poor English skills or so little previous school 

experience that assessment results do not provide any meaningful 

information. Instead, some of these officials stated that students with 

limited English proficiency should not be included in academic 

assessments until they demonstrate appropriate English. However, the 

National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization, has voiced 

concern that excluding too many students from a state’s annual progress 

measures will allow some states and districts to overlook the needs of 

these students. 

With respect to including the scores of students previously classified as 

limited English proficient for up to 2 years, officials in 2 of our 5 study 

states, as well as one member of our expert group, thought it would be 

more appropriate for these students to be counted in the limited English 

proficient group throughout their school careers—but only for 

accountability purposes. They pointed out that by keeping students 

formerly classified as limited English proficient in the group, districts that 

work well with these students would see increases in the percentage who 

score at the proficient level in language arts and mathematics. An 

Education official explained that the agency does not want to label these 

students as limited English proficient any longer than necessary. 

Education officials also noted that including all students who were 

formerly limited English proficient would inflate the achievement 

measures for this group. 

District officials in 4 states argued that tracking the progress of individual

students in this group is a better measure of how well these students are 

progressing academically. Officials in one district pointed to a high school 

with a large percentage of students with limited English proficiency that 

had made tremendous progress with these students, doubling the 

percentage of students achieving academic proficiency. The school missed 

the annual progress target for this group by a few percentage points, but

school officials said that the school would be considered successful if it 

was measured by how much individual students had improved. In 

response to educators and policymakers who believe such an approach 

should be used for all students, Education initiated a pilot project in 

November 2005, allowing a limited number of states to incorporate 

Page 17 GAO-07-646T 
measures of student progress over time in determining whether districts 

and schools met their annual progress goals.11

We made several recommendations to Education in our July 2006 report.

Specifically, we recommended that Education support additional research 

on appropriate accommodations for these students and disseminate 

information on research-based accommodations to states. We also 

recommended that Education determine what additional technical 

assistance states need to implement valid and reliable academic 

assessments for these students and provide such assistance. Further, we 

recommended that Education publish additional guidance with more 

specific information on the requirements for assessing English language 

proficiency and tracking student progress in learning English. Finally, we 

recommended that Education explore ways to provide states with 

additional flexibility in terms of holding states accountable for students 

with limited English proficiency. 

Prior 

Recommendations 

and Agency Response 

Education agreed with our first three recommendations and has taken a 

number of steps to address them. In recognition of the challenges 

associated with assessing students with limited English proficiency and in

response to GAO’s report, Education initiated the LEP (Limited English 

Proficient) Partnership in July 2006. Under the partnership, Education has 

pledged to provide technical assistance and support to states in the 

development of assessment options for states to use in addressing the 

needs of their diverse student populations. Education’s partners in this 

effort include the National Council of LaRaza, Mexican American Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund, Council of Chief State School Officers, 

Comprehensive Center on Assessment and Accountability, and the 

National Center on English Language Acquisition. All states have been 

invited to participate in this effort. The partnership held its first meeting in 

August 2006. In October 2006, officials from all the states came together to 

discuss areas for which they need additional technical assistance. As a 

result of these meetings, Education is supporting a variety of technical 

assistance projects, including the development of a framework on English 

language proficiency standards and assessments, the development of 

guides for developing native language and simplified assessments, and the 

 11See GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic

Growth That Education’s Initiatives May Help Address, GAO-06-661 (Washington, D.C.: 

July 17, 2006), for further information on Education’s pilot project. 

Page 18 GAO-07-646T 
development of a handbook on appropriate accommodations for students 

with limited English proficiency. Education officials told us that they are 

planning the next partnership meeting for the summer of 2007 and expect

to have several of these resources available at that time. 

Education did not explicitly agree or disagree with our recommendation to 

explore additional options for state flexibility. Instead, the agency 

commented that it has explored and already provided various types of 

flexibility regarding the inclusion of students with limited English 

proficiency in accountability systems. However, in January 2007, 

Education issued a blueprint for strengthening NCLBA, which calls for 

greater use of growth models and the recognition within state 

accountability systems of schools that make significant progress in moving 

students toward English proficiency. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may 

have. 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512- 7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

include Harriet Ganson, Bryon Gordon, Shannon Groff, Krista Loose, 

Michelle St. Pierre, Sheranda Campbell, and Nagla’a El Hodiri. 

GAO Contacts 

Page 19 GAO-07-646T 
Page 20 GAO-07-646T 

Related GAO Products 

No Child Left Behind Act: Education’s Data Improvement Efforts Could 

Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds. GAO-07-140. 

Washington, D.C.: December 7, 2006.

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local 

Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational 

Services. GAO-06-758. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2006. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States 

Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency.

GAO-06-815. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006. 

No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic 

Growth That Education’s Initiatives May Help Address. GAO-06-661. 

Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education’s 

Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification 

Requirements. GAO-06-25. Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2005. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More to Help States Better 

Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention 

Strategies. GAO-05-879. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2005. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated 

in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved.

GAO-05-618. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005. 

Head Start: Further Development Could Allow Results of New Test to Be

Used for Decision Making. GAO-05-343. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional 

Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School 

Choice Provision. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process 

for Tracking States’ Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734. 

Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004. 
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. 
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER