This brief was prepared for the U.S. 

Department of Education under 

Contract Number ED-04-CO0025/0017 with the American 

Institutes for Research (AIR); 

Andrea Boyle, James Taylor, Steven 

Hurlburt, and Kay Soga are the 

authors. Liz Eisner, who serves as 

the contracting officer’s 

representative (COR) for the 

National Evaluation of Title III 

Implementation, also served as 

COR for this brief. The views 

expressed herein do not necessarily 

represent the positions or policies 

of the Department of Education. 

No official endorsement by the 

U.S. Department of Education is 

intended or should be inferred. 

Title III Accountability: Behind the Numbers 

ESEA Evaluation Brief: The English Language Acquisition, Language 

Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act 

May 2010 

Title III of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 

provides funding to support programs for 

English Learners (ELs)1

—referred to in the 

law as “limited English proficient 

children”—and establishes a system for 

holding recipient states and districts 

accountable for their performance in 

raising ELs’ achievement and English 

language proficiency outcomes. Title III 

provisions have required states to 

generate various data and performance 

information to potentially inform and 

motivate efforts to improve the education 

of ELs. Complexities in the way Title 

III performance information is 

calculated—and in the EL population 

itself—demand a careful look into the 

meaning behind the numbers. This brief 

explores some of those complexities while 

presenting the most recent data available 

on the nation’s school-age EL population 

Highlights 

• According to state reports, the 4.7 million students identified as ELs2 in 

2007–08 constituted about 10 percent of the nation’s K–12 student enrollment, 

and the vast majority of these students were receiving services in programs 

supported in part by Title III funds. 

3⁄4 Looking more closely, ELs are unevenly distributed across states with larger 

proportions of ELs in southwestern states and higher rates of growth in 

several eastern states. 

• Only 11 states met their state-level Title III performance goals, or Annual 

Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for the 2007–08 school year, but at 

the district-level, 59 percent of Title III districts nationwide met their AMAOs 

that year. 

3⁄4 However, variation and fluctuation in these state-defined performance goals 

make comparisons of performance across states and over time difficult. 

• One-quarter of Title III districts had missed their AMAO performance goals for 2 or 

4 consecutive years based on 2007–08 and prior years’ test results, subjecting them 

to such specific actions outlined in the law as developing an improvement plan, 

modifying their instructional program, or replacing educational personnel. 

3⁄4 On one hand, an analysis of three states with complete data revealed that half 

of such districts were already facing accountability actions because they were 

identified for improvement under the Title I accountability provisions of ESEA. 

On the other hand, this analysis indicates that Title III accountability at least 

doubled the number of districts facing ESEA-related scrutiny to improve EL 

outcomes in these three states. 
2 

and on states’ and districts’ Title III 

accountability performance. 

Introduction 

The creation of Title III in the 2001 reauthorization 

of ESEA marked a new federal approach to 

supporting states and districts in providing 

high-quality instruction to meet the needs of ELs. 

Whereas Title VII of the former ESEA of 1994 

provided funding for EL services through 

competitive grants, the new Title III introduced a 

system of formula-based grants allocated to 

states according to the size of their EL and 

immigrant student populations. States distribute 

these funds to subgrantee districts or consortia 

of districts,3

 which use these monies to 

(1) enhance their Language Instruction 

Educational Programs (LIEPs) to improve ELs’ 

English language proficiency and academic 

achievement in the content areas, and/or 

(2) provide professional development to 

strengthen teachers’ ability to effectively instruct 

and assess ELs. 

As a condition of receiving funds, Title III calls for 

heightened levels of accountability to ensure 

that states and districts are improving both 

English language proficiency and academic 

achievement outcomes for greater numbers and 

percentages of ELs.4

 This brief explores how 

states have implemented accountability 

measures and applied them to Title III-funded 

jurisdictions as of the 2007–08 school year. After 

examining the size and nature of the EL 

population targeted by Title III, this brief 

describes how states have defined annual 

performance goals, called Annual Measurable 

Achievement Objectives (AMAOs), mandated 

under Title III, and how states and districts are 

faring with regard to those goals. The brief 

also highlights some of the challenges inherent 

in interpreting states’ and districts’ 

accountability results. 

The second in a three-part series, this brief builds 

on the discussion of Title III accountability 

featured in Title III Policy: State of the States, 

which provides an overview of how states 

have implemented each of Title III’s major 

provisions. The third brief in this series, 

Title III Accountability and District 

Improvement Efforts: A Closer Look, explores 

how districts that have repeatedly missed their 

Title III performance goals are working to 

improve education outcomes among their ELs.5

Data Sources and Research Questions

This brief draws primarily from data reported by states in their Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs) for 

2004–05 through 2007–08. The CSPRs are annual reports required under ESEA that states use to submit information to the U.S. 

Department of Education about their activities and outcomes related to specific ESEA programs. The CSPR data reflect states’ 

direct reports as of March 2009 and have not been validated by the U.S. Department of Education or other external parties. Other 

extant data sources for this brief include the Office of English Language Acquisition’s (OELA) 2002–04 and 2004–06 Title 

III biennial reports (U.S. Department of Education, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2008a) data collections, state interview 

data collected in 2006–07 by the State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX—Accountability 

Under NCLB: Final Report (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), EDFacts data reports6

 from 2005–06 through 2007–08, and 

U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) for 2006–07. 

Additionally, in April through June of 2009, a review of state education agency Web sites and online policy documents was 

conducted to ascertain states’ most recently released information on how states set their Title III Annual Measurable Achievement 

Objectives (AMAOs) and which districts missed their Title III AMAOs for 2 or more years. Analyses include data on all 50 states, 

the District of Columbia, and the districts within these states that receive Title III funds. 

The research questions guiding this brief include: 

1. How large and diverse is the nation’s school-age EL population, and how is it distributed across states? 

2. How do Title III AMAO targets and definitions vary across states? 

3. Are states and Title III subgrantee districts meeting their AMAO targets? 

4. What characteristics are associated with Title III subgrantee districts that repeatedly miss their AMAO targets? 
3 

What are the characteristics of 

the nation’s EL population? 

One out of every 10 students in 

K–12 was identified as an EL in the 

2007–08 school year. 

According to Consolidated State Performance 

Reports, approximately 4.7 million, or 

10 percent, of the nation’s students in K–12 were 

classified as ELs in 2007–08.7

 Over 1.5 million of 

these students resided in the state of California 

alone, constituting nearly a quarter of the state’s 

entire K–12 enrollment. Other states with 

particularly large EL populations include Texas 

with close to 702,000 ELs, Florida with over 

268,000 ELs, and New York with nearly 

209,000 ELs. Additionally, Illinois, Arizona, and 

North Carolina each reported EL populations of 

between 100,000 and 200,000 students. 

Collectively, these seven states accounted for 

over 68 percent of the national K–12 EL 

population in 2007–08. 

Although more than two-thirds of the nation’s 

ELs were located in this select group of states, 

the remainder of the population was 

considerably dispersed throughout the country. 

Indeed, nearly half of the states (24) reported 

sizable EL populations that fell between 

20,000 and 100,000 students in 2007—08, as 

shown in Exhibit 1. Only five states—Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia, and 

Wyoming—reported EL populations of less than 

5,000 students. This dispersal is perhaps more 

evident when states’ numbers of ELs are viewed 

relative to their total student enrollment. 

Southwestern states tended to report 

the highest proportions of ELs, but 

more than half of the states reported 

EL proportions of at least 5 percent of 

their K–12 enrollment. 

As Exhibit 2 illustrates, states in the western and 

southwestern United States—including 

California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, 

and Colorado—were likely to report the highest 

proportions of ELs in 2007–08.8

 Alaska and 

Oregon also indicated that over 10 percent of 

their K–12 students were identified as ELs 

that year. 

In all, 32 states and the District of Columbia 

reported EL proportions of at least 5 percent. 

Among the remaining 18 states, West Virginia 

and Mississippi reported the lowest proportion 

of ELs, indicating that approximately 1 percent 

of their K–12 enrollment was composed of ELs. 

Whether their EL population is large or small, 

states and districts face challenges in meeting 

the needs of their EL students. Jurisdictions with 

large numbers or percentages of ELs may 

grapple with meeting the needs of ELs on a large 

scale but also may have a critical mass of ELs that 

makes provision of services a higher priority and 

more cost-effective than in areas with fewer ELs 

(Cosentino de Cohen, Deterding, and Clewell, 

2005). States and districts with smaller numbers 

or percentages of ELs may have more isolated EL 

populations and more commonly have lower 

levels of infrastructure, expertise, and political 

priority for providing instruction suited to the 

unique needs of ELs. Jurisdictions with small and 

growing EL enrollments also may be more likely 

to employ a less coordinated or more ad hoc 

approach to serving ELs (Zehler et al., 2008; Short 

and Fitzsimmons, 2007; Ballantyne, Sanderman, 

and Levy, 2008). 

Most states’ EL populations are chiefly 

Spanish-speaking, but ELs nationwide 

speak over 400 languages.

In the 2007–08 school year, most states (44) and 

the District of Columbia reported having 

predominantly Spanish-speaking EL populations, 

and nearly all states (49) and the District of 

Columbia included Spanish as one of their state’s 

top five EL home languages. Four states 

identified a Native American language as the 
4 

Exhibit 1: Students in K–12 Identified as EL, Total Number and as a Percentage of 

Total K–12 Enrollment, by State, 2007–08 School Year 

State 

Number of 

ELs 

Identified 

Percent of Total 

Enrollment 

Identified as EL State 

Number of ELs 

Identified 

Percent of Total 

Enrollment 

Identified as EL 

Alabama 19,508 3% Montana 6,270 5% 

Alaska 15,879 12% Nebraska 20,095 7% 

Arizona 166,572 14% Nevada 78,433 18% 

Arkansas 26,003 6% New Hampshire 3,292 2% 

California 1,553,091 24% New Jersey 54,503 4% 

Colorado 82,347 11% New Mexico 60,624 19% 

Connecticut 30,713 6% New York 208,848 8% 

Delaware 6,831 6% North Carolina 114,620 8% 

District of Columbia* 5,165 7% North Dakota 5,377 6% 

Florida 268,207 10% Ohio 38,026 2% 

Georgia 79,894 5% Oklahoma 37,744 6% 

Hawaii 17,868 10% Oregon 65,314 12% 

Idaho 18,535 7% Pennsylvania 46,357 3% 

Illinois 175,454 9% Rhode Island 7,427 5% 

Indiana 46,417 4% South Carolina 29,907 4% 

Iowa 19,736 4% South Dakota 5,745 5% 

Kansas 34,630 8% Tennessee 25,449 3% 

Kentucky 12,919 2% Texas 701,799 15% 

Louisiana 12,534 2% Utah 52,635 10% 

Maine 4,606 2% Vermont 1,741 2% 

Maryland 41,593 5% Virginia 89,968 7% 

Massachusetts 48,966 5% Washington 94,011 9% 

Michigan 74,700 4% West Virginia 1,615 1% 

Minnesota 68,745 8% Wisconsin 47,593 6% 

Mississippi 5,428 1% Wyoming 2,349 3% 

Missouri 19,053 2% Total 4,655,409 10% 

most commonly spoken language among their 

ELs. Other language minority groups that were 

frequently listed among states’ top five include 

Vietnamese (31 states and the District of 

Columbia), Arabic (23 states), Chinese (22 states 

and the District of Columbia), Korean (10 states), 

Russian (10 states), and Hmong (7 states).9

Furthermore, ELs across the nation speak over 

400 different languages (National Clearinghouse 

for English Language Acquisition, 2002) 

indicating that while Spanish speakers account 

for the majority of ELs, states and districts must 

Exhibit reads: In the 2007–08 school year, 19,508 students in K–12 were identified as EL in the state of Alabama and 

constituted 3 percent of the state’s total K–12 enrollment. 

* The District of Columbia is included as a state. 

Note: Tennessee data was updated based on a conversation with the state. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2007–08 (n = 50 states and the District of Columbia). 
5 

find ways to serve students with a truly diverse 

range of language backgrounds. 

In addition to their language diversity, ELs differ 

in many other ways that have important 

implications for their education. ELs include 

recent immigrants to the U.S. as well as lifelong 

residents, students with stable prior education 

backgrounds and students with limited or 

interrupted formal schooling, students who live 

with English speakers and students who live in 

linguistically isolated households, young students 

just entering school and older students trying to 

acquire more advanced academic content in the 

new language (Planty et al., 2009; Capps et al., 

2005; Hernandez, Denton, and Macartney, 2007; 

Short and Fitzsimmons, 2007). Most of the 

nation’s EL population is elementary 

school-aged, but a growing proportion of ELs are 

older students in middle and high school who 

are either long-term ELs or adolescent 

newcomers (Capps et al., 2005). Although most 

ELs were born in the United States, a little over 

one-third were foreign-born, based on analyses 

of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005–07 American 

Community Survey data (Zehr, 2009). 

Foreign-born students who have recently 

immigrated to the United States arrive with 

varied prior education backgrounds, and some 

may need assistance adjusting to a new system 

of schooling (Francis, Rivera, Lasaux, Kieffer, and 

Rivera, 2006; Short and Fitzsimmons, 2007). In 

2007–08, 14 states reported that at least 

2 percent of their total K–12 student enrollment 

was comprised of recent immigrants who had 

attended U.S. schools for less than 3 years while 

only 5 states reported that less than 0.5 percent 

of their students fit these criteria.10, 11

The vast majority of students identified 

as ELs participated in programs 

supported in part by Title III funds. 

About 4.4 million, or 94 percent, of 

K–12 students who were identified as ELs in 

2007–08, received services in Language 

Exhibit 2: Percentage of State K–12 Enrollment Identified as EL, 2007–08 

Exhibit Reads: The darkest-colored states reported that over 10 percent of their total K–12 enrollment was identified as EL in 

2007–08. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2007–08 (n = 50 states and the District of Columbia) 
6 

Instruction Educational Programs (LIEPs) funded 

in part by Title III (see Exhibit 3). Several factors 

may explain why the remaining students 

identified as ELs did not participate in Title 

III-funded programs each year. For example, they 

may have been enrolled in school districts that 

did not receive Title III subgrants (e.g., districts 

with EL populations too small to qualify for the 

minimum subgrant amount that chose not to 

participate in a consortium), or their parents may 

have declined LEP services. 

Exhibit 3: Number of Title III Subgrantees and Number and Percentage of ELs Served in 

Programs Supported in Part by Title III Funds, by State, 2007–08 School Year 

State 

# of 

Subgrantees 

# of ELs 

Served 

% of 

ELs 

Served State 

# of 

Subgrantees 

# of ELs 

Served 

% of 

ELs 

Served 

Alabama 53 16,881 87% Montana 69 3,647 54% 

Alaska 12 15,355 97% Nebraska 23 19,022 95% 

Arizona 217 161,783 97% Nevada 9 78,433 100% 

Arkansas 36 23,237 89% New Hampshire 12 2,872 87% 

California 628 1,526,036 98% New Jersey 197 52,766 97% 

Colorado 57 82,127 100% New Mexico 57 59,879 99% 

Connecticut 54 30,006 98% New York 190 195,062 93% 

Delaware 16 6,756 99% North Carolina 85 113,011 99% 

District of Columbia* 5 4,147 80% North Dakota 9 2,577 48% 

Florida 48 234,605 87% Ohio 244 36,496 96% 

Georgia 185 65,815 82% Oklahoma 60 32,447 86% 

Hawaii 1 17,868 100% Oregon 61 56,546 87% 

Idaho 37 16,524 90% Pennsylvania 100 46,340 100% 

Illinois 196 167,130 95% Rhode Island 17 7,427 100% 

Indiana 96 44,647 96% South Carolina 44 27,244 91% 

Iowa 12 19,736 100% South Dakota 9 4,167 73% 

Kansas 41 28,683 83% Tennessee 60 25,482 99% 

Kentucky 30 12,033 93% Texas 1019 691,717 99% 

Louisiana 24 12,534 100% Utah 31 51,829 98% 

Maine 12 3,907 85% Vermont 11 1,119 64% 

Maryland 23 41,570 100% Virginia 102 89,505 99% 

Massachusetts 57 46,378 95% Washington 140 84,704 90% 

Michigan 100 64,922 87% West Virginia 24 1,211 75% 

Minnesota 91 59,921 87% Wisconsin 74 42,838 90% 

Mississippi 23 4,664 86% Wyoming 20 1,951 83% 

Missouri 56 16,957 89% Total 4,777 4,382,116 94% 

Exhibit reads: In 2007–08, Alabama provided Title III subgrants to 53 districts and/or consortia. Eighty-seven percent of ELs in 

Alabama were served by programs funded in part by Title III. 

* The District of Columbia is included as a state. 

Note: Consolidated State Performance Report data 2007–08 for Tennessee and Florida data were updated based on conversations with 

the states. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2007–08 (n = 50 states and the District of Columbia). 
7 

The number of ELs participating in 

programs funded in part by Title 

III increased 18 percent over the 

last 5 years. 

Nationally, the number of ELs served by Title 

III-funded programs in K–12, increased 

18 percent over the past 5-year period since the 

2002–03 school year, from approximately 

3.7 million ELs in 2002–03 to 4.4 million in 

2007–08.12, 13 Rates of growth in Title III-served 

students varied dramatically across states. New 

York and South Carolina reported the largest 

rate of growth in Title III-served ELs over the last 

5 years, indicating that over 200 percent more 

students were enrolled in Title III-supported 

programs in 2007–08 than in 2002–03. Arkansas, 

Delaware, Indiana, Maine, Montana, and 

Tennessee reported over 100 percent growth in 

their Title III-served ELs in that same time period. 

In contrast, Alaska indicated that Title III-funded 

programs served 17 percent fewer ELs in 

2007–08 than in 2002–03. 

As illustrated in Exhibit 4, states that have 

traditionally had larger EL populations and, thus, 

may be more experienced in meeting their needs 

tended to report lower levels of growth in their 

numbers of ELs participating in Title 

III-supported programs between 2002–03 and 

2007–08 than did states for whom these issues 

are relatively more recent. This finding is consistent with prior research that has identified a 

shift in immigration patterns away from 

traditional gateway states, like Florida, to other 

states over the last 15 years. (Cosentino de 

Cohen, Deterding, and Clewell, 2005; 

Batalova, Fix, and Murray, 2005; Short and 

Fitzsimmons, 2007). 

Exhibit 4: Growth in the Number of ELs Served in Title III, 2003–2008 

Exhibit Reads: States colored in the darkest shade of purple reported an increase of over 100 percent in the number of ELs 

participating in programs supported by Title III between the 2002–03 and 2007–08 school years. 

Sources: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2007–08 and data collected for the Biennial Report to Congress on the 

Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program, School Years 2002–2004 (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). 

(n = 50 states and the District of Columbia) 
8 

How does Title III hold states 

and districts accountable for 

improving the education of ELs? 

Annual Title III performance goals track 

improvements in ELs’ English language 

development as well as their academic 

achievement. 

Title III, Section 3122(a), requires states to 

institute new standards-based accountability 

measures for monitoring state and district 

performance in supporting ELs’ “development 

and attainment of English proficiency while 

meeting challenging State academic content and 

student academic achievement standards.” 

Specifically, the law calls for states to establish a 

set of three Annual Measurable Achievement 

Objectives (AMAOs): 

♦ AMAO 1—Annual increases in the number 

or percentage of children making progress

in learning English; 

♦ AMAO 2—Annual increases in the number 

or percentage of children attaining English 

proficiency; and 

♦ AMAO 3—Making adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) for limited English 

proficient children as described in Title I, 

Section 1111(b)(2)(B), of ESEA. 

AMAOs are calculated at both the state and 

district level, and states and districts that receive 

Title III funds must satisfy all three objectives to 

qualify as meeting their AMAOs in a given year. 

States must determine AMAO performance 

results annually and report this information to 

Title III subgrantee districts and consortia of 

districts as well as to the U.S. Department of 

Education. Subgrantee districts and consortia 

that miss their AMAOs must in turn notify 

parents of Title III-served ELs of their AMAO 

performance. Districts and consortia that miss 

their AMAOs for 2 or 4 consecutive years face 

additional consequences, such as implementing 

 an improvement plan and, for those that miss 

for 4 consecutive years, undergoing 

programmatic, staffing, and/or funding 

adjustments. (For further discussion of these 

consequences, see the “What happens when 

districts miss their AMAO targets?” section of the 

companion brief Title III Policy: State of 

the States.) 

Under Title III, states define their own 

annual performance goals (AMAOs). 

For AMAOs 1 and 2, states have discretion to 

define what constitutes “making progress” and 

“attaining proficiency” and to establish annual 

targets for each AMAO, provided that their 

definitions and targets comply with criteria 

specified in Section 3122 of Title III. As part of 

their Title I accountability procedures, states also 

define adequate yearly progress for AMAO 

3 according to parameters specified in Section 

1111 of ESEA and in the Department of 

Education’s Title I regulations and policy 

guidance (see text box, “ELs and Title I 

Accountability” on page 9).14

Section 3122 of Title III requires that states’ 

AMAOs: 

♦ Reflect the amount of time an EL has been 

enrolled in a language instruction 

educational program (LIEP). 

♦ Include targets that call for annual increases 

in the number or percentage of children 

making progress in learning English and 

annual increases in the number or 

percentage of children attaining English 

language proficiency. These data must be 

determined through consistent methods and 

measurements, including a valid and reliable 

assessment of English language proficiency. 

♦ Include the targets set under Title I for 

making adequate yearly progress with 

respect to ELs on assessments in the 

academic content areas as the third AMAO 

target.15
9 

How have states set their 

annual performance goals— 

or AMAOs—under Title III? 

Setting annual measurable achievement 

objectives (AMAOs) has been a challenge for 

states. States initially set their AMAOs using the 

provisions of the law without detailed guidance 

from the Department, using a mixture of existing 

data on proficiency levels of their ELs, research, 

and guesswork about how long it takes ELs 

to become proficient in academic English 

(Zehr, 2003). 

States also faced challenges in implementing ELP 

standards that were aligned with state academic 

content standards and valid and reliable ELP 

assessments, both of which are essential in 

determining valid and reasonable growth 

targets. 

Indeed, prior to the 2001 ESEA reauthorization, 

most states used ELP assessments that were 

developed for placement purposes and were 

inappropriate for measuring growth in language 

acquisition as required by Title III. States that had 

no prior ELP assessment had to adopt an interim 

test that would assess EL students annually while 

working on the development of assessments that 

were in line with Title III requirements, most of 

which took several years to develop. For further 

discussion of the challenges states encountered 

in developing and implementing Title III AMAOs, 

see the companion brief, Title III Policy: State of 

the States. 

Most states have revised their Title 

III AMAOs since instituting them in 

2003, making it difficult to compare 

AMAO performance results over time. 

By the 2007–08 school year, all states and the 

District of Columbia had established a set of 

AMAOs, though most had revised or anticipated 

revising their AMAOs in the future (see the 

companion brief Title III Policy: State of the 

States). In recent years, AMAOs have increasingly 

undergone revision as states can now look at 

several years of data to develop more valid 

performance targets. AMAOs in many states also 

are undergoing revision in response to the 

Department of Education’s October 2008 Notice 

of Final Interpretations (NOFI) (U.S. Department 

of Education, 2008b), which clarified the 

Department’s interpretation of several key Title 

III provisions, including those related to AMAOs. 

To allow states a transition period for aligning 

their AMAOs with the NOFI’s new guidelines 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2008b), the 

Department gave states until the time for AMAO 

determinations made based on the state English 

language proficiency assessments administered 

in the 2009–10 school year to comply. As of June 

ELs and Title I Accountability

Title I, Part A, of the No Child Left Behind Act holds states, districts, and schools accountable for making Adequate Yearly 

Progress (AYP) in the numbers or percentages of students meeting state standards for grade-level proficiency in the 

content areas. 

Determinations of AYP under Title I involve meeting state-defined objectives, including students’ performance on state content 

assessments in reading and math, students’ rates of participation in state content assessments in reading and math, and other 

such academic indicators as attendance and graduation rates. 

States, districts, and schools must meet their AYP objectives for all indicators both across all students and for each student 

subgroup outlined in Title I, including one subgroup comprised of ELLs. Individual ELLs also may fall under additional Title I 

accountability subgroups, including those for low-income students, racial minorities, and students with disabilities. 

Schools and districts incur specific consequences according to the number of consecutive years they fail to make AYP. 
10 

2009, eight states had submitted AMAO 

amendments that had been approved by the 

Department (U.S. Department of Education, 

personal communication, July 7, 2009). 

Both numeric AMAO targets and the definitions 

of “progress” and “proficiency” have varied 

dramatically across states since Title III has been 

in place. The next section describes the variation 

across states in AMAOs 1, 2, and 3, respectively, 

based on available 2007–08 state documentation. 

The analyses examine variation in numeric 

targets and in the definitions of the key terms—

such as “progress” and “proficiency”—that lie 

beneath the numbers. 

AMAO 1: States used a variety of 

approaches for determining whether 

more ELs are “making progress in 

learning English.”

Variation in Targets 

Almost all states (43 of the 45 with available 

target information) set targets in the form of a 

percentage of ELs who made progress in 

learning English from one year to the next 

(exceptions included Maine and Nebraska, which 

used point systems that account for the number 

of ELs achieving at various levels on the state ELP 

assessment and, thus, set targets in the form of 

number of points). Among the states using 

percentages, AMAO 1 targets in 2007–08 ranged 

from 20 percent in Kansas and New Mexico to 

85 percent in Illinois. In other words, Kansas 

required that 20 percent of EL students in Title 

III subgrantee districts demonstrate progress in 

learning English each year, while Illinois required 

85 percent of EL students in Title III subgrantee 

districts to do so. This wide range of expected 

percentages of progress could be viewed as a 

reflection of the extent to which states have set 

more or less challenging targets for their 

percentage of ELs making progress; however, the 

numeric targets are impossible to assess without 

understanding the variation across states 

regarding the definition of the term 

“making progress.” 

Variation in Definitions 

State definitions of what constituted “making 

progress in learning English” and how these 

definitions were applied to specific sets of 

Exhibit 5. Time Line of Policy Actions Related to States’ Implementation of Title III Accountability 

Date Policy Action

2001 The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the No Child Left Behind Act, is signed 

into law. 

February 

2003 

The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) releases nonregulatory guidance to clarify requirements for Title 

III accountability. 

June 2003 The Department finishes reviewing and approving all state plans for Title III implementation. States seeking to revise 

their Title III accountability procedures are permitted to submit amendments to the Department for review and approval. 

2003–04 

school year 

States are required to begin reporting Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) determinations and holding 

districts accountable for their AMAO performance. 

2005 The Department institutes a system of monitoring visits to oversee states’ implementation of Title III provisions. 

2007 

Based on findings from Title III monitoring visits, the Department places special conditions on 22 states’ 2007 Title III 

grant awards for failure to make accurate AMAO determinations for prior school years. the Department requires these 

states to submit corrective action plans detailing how they will make AMAO determinations for those prior years and 

allows states the option of using a minimum of AMAO 3 if states are unable to calculate AMAOs 1 and/or 2. 

October 

2008 

The Department issues a Notice of Final Interpretations (U.S. Department of Education, 2008b) outlining the 

Department’s interpretation of specific Title III requirements, including those related to Title III accountability. 

2009–10 

school year 

States’ AMAO targets and definitions are required to be consistent with the Department’s Notice of Final 

Interpretations (U.S. Department of Education, 2008b), effective with the AMAO determinations made based on the 

state English language proficiency assessments administered in 2009–10. 

Note: AMAO—Annual Measurable Achievement Objective 
11 

students for AMAO 1 varied on several 

dimensions, according to state policy documents 

released as of spring 2009. 

♦ States used different ELP assessments, which 

used different scoring scales, and 

information regarding the comparability of 

these assessments is not currently available 

(Abedi, 2007). 

♦ Half of states with sufficient documentation 

for classification (17 out of 34) defined 

progress as moving up at least one level on 

the ELP assessment from one year to the 

next; in the 17 other states with sufficient 

documentation, less than one level 

constituted progress (however, one level 

does not mean the same amount of learning 

on different assessments). 

♦ Some states (at least six of 39 states with 

sufficient documentation for this 

classification) considered AMAO 1 met if 

progress was made in any of the domains of 

the ELP assessment (e.g., reading, writing, 

listening, or speaking); most states (at least 

30) required progress based on a composite 

score or average across the domains; still 

other states (at least three) required 

progress in each of the domains. 

♦ Most states (24 of 39 with adequate 

information) set a single undifferentiated

target percentage for AMAO 1; another 

15 states set differentiated target 

percentages that take into account the 

students’ years in program, grade level, or 

previous proficiency level.16

♦ Most states (34 of 37 with sufficient 

information) calculated progress only on 

those ELs with ELP assessment scores for 

both the prior year and the current year 

(i.e., longitudinal data), while a few (at least 

three) states included more ELs but are not 

able to compare an individual student’s 

score from one year to the next. The states 

in the latter category were using 

“consecutive cross sections,” comparing the 

performance of one year’s ELs with the 

performance of the following year’s ELs. 

♦ Seventeen states explicitly included students 

who moved from scoring below proficient to 

scoring at or above the proficient level in 

the percentage of students making progress, 

thereby giving credit for students who 

“made progress” and, in so doing, met the 

requirements for “attaining English 

language proficiency.” Three other states 

indicated that they only included those 

students in AMAO 2 calculations. Policy 

documents for the remaining 31 states did 

not explicitly address this issue. 

♦ Two states explicitly included former limited 

English proficient students (i.e., ELs who 

have exited EL services). Five states explicitly 

excluded former limited English proficient 

students, but 44 states did not specify in 

their policy documents whether these 

students were included in AMAO 1. 

♦ At least 14 states explicitly stated that they 

use methods to ensure the validity and 

reliability of AMAO determinations similar 

to those used in the calculation of AYP 

(e.g., inclusion only of students who were 

present for a full academic year, required 

minimum number of students in a district for 

AMAO calculation, use of confidence 

intervals),17 while other states’ policy 

documents did not explicitly mention the 

use of such adjustments. 

Depending on where the state’s definition falls, 

within these dimensions, specific numeric targets 

were harder or easier to meet. 
12 

AMAO 2: States also differed in how 

they determined whether more ELs 

were “attaining English language 

proficiency.” 

Variation in Targets 

AMAO 2 targets in 2007–08 ranged from a goal 

of 0.5 percent of ELs attaining English language 

proficiency in South Carolina to a goal of 

70 percent of ELs attaining proficiency in New 

Jersey. In other words, in 2007–08 for a Title 

III subgrantee district with 200 ELs, South 

Carolina required the district to demonstrate 

that at least 1 of the 200 ELs “attained English 

proficiency” and New Jersey required that the 

district demonstrate that at least 140 of the 

200 ELs had done so. Typically, states set the 

target percentage expected to attain English 

language proficiency for AMAO 2 lower than the 

target percentage expected to make progress in 

learning English for AMAO 1. Again, these 

numeric targets are impossible to assess without 

understanding the variation across states in the 

definition of the term “attaining English 

language proficiency.” 

Variation in Definitions 

Most states (36 of the 45 states with sufficient 

documentation) defined “attaining English 

language proficiency” as earning an ELP test 

composite (sometimes weighted)18 scoring level 

variably labeled as “proficient,” “transitional,” 

or a numbered level representing one of the 

higher levels on the test scale (e.g., a 4 or higher 

on a scale of 1 to 6). At least nine other states 

further required that a student have earned a 

nearly proficient or proficient score on each 

separate domain, thereby ensuring that the 

composite score does not conceal a significant 

weakness in one of the domains. Of course, 

states use different ELP assessments, which use 

different scales and scoring-level cut points and 

presumably vary in difficulty. Even among states 

using the same assessment, state documents 

indicate variation in the scoring level defined as 

proficient for the purpose of AMAO 2. For 

example, “proficient” was defined as 6.0 in 

Wisconsin, 5.0–6.0 in the District of Columbia, 

and 4.8–6.0 in Alabama all on the same Assessing 

Comprehension and Communication in English 

State-to-State for English Language Learners 

(ACCESS for ELLs) assessment. 

Another key way that states differed is whether 

they calculated AMAO 2 performance based on 

an undifferentiated population of all Title IIIserved students or accounted for students’ 

differing likelihoods of attaining English 

language proficiency. In 2007–08, 16 of the 

43 states with sufficient documentation 

accounted for students’ differing likelihoods of 

attaining proficiency by either including only the 

subset of students who could reasonably be 

expected to reach proficiency in the current year 

or by differentiating the target percentages for 

different cohorts defined by student 

characteristics. The Notice of Final 

Interpretations issued in 2008 (U.S. Department 

of Education, 2008b), makes clear that exclusions 

based on student characteristics such as age, 

grade level, proficiency level, or length of time in 

the United States is not permitted; the only 

permissible basis for establishing cohorts is the 

“amount of time (for example, number of years) 

such students have had access to language 

instruction educational programs.” 

Two further approaches that differentiate the 

meaning of “attaining proficiency” across states 

are the use of Title I EL subgroup exit criteria and 

the use of multiple attainment indicators. In 

2007–08, only 13 states mentioned exit criteria in 

their AMAO 2 definitions. Of those states, six 

states explicitly used the same definition for 

“attaining proficiency” for AMAO 2 under Title 

III as for exiting students out of the EL subgroup 

for Title I accountability, and seven states 

indicated that attaining proficiency for AMAO 

2 was not the same as the criteria for exiting EL 

subgroup status. In the 2008 Notice of Final 

Interpretations, the Department has encouraged 

states to use their Title I EL subgroup exit criteria 
13 

for determining whether students had “attained 

proficiency” for the purpose of AMAO 2. 

At least four states (Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, 

Texas) use two ELP attainment indicators such 

that if a subgrantee meets either the first or the 

second standard then the subgrantee meets 

AMAO 2. For example, Georgia has defined 

proficiency as obtaining a composite score of 

5.0 or higher on the state ELP assessment as its 

first attainment indicator for AMAO 2. But, 

because some ELs who score less than 5.0 on the 

ELP assessment may qualify to exit EL services via 

a language assessment committee, Georgia 

evaluates whether the district exceeded the state 

average percentage of ELs who exited as a 

second attainment indicator for AMAO 2. If a 

subgrantee does not meet the first attainment 

indicator but is above the state average on the 

second indicator, it is identified as having met 

AMAO 2. 

AMAO 3: Making AYP for the EL 

subgroup has little common meaning 

across states. 

Variation in Targets 

The simple targets for percentage proficient in 

reading and mathematics for the EL subgroup 

that states set for AMAO 3 belie the complexity 

of the underlying calculation of adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) (e.g., inclusion of students in 

subgroup, reliability adjustments, growth 

models) (see U.S. Department of Education, 

2010). Those simple percentage proficient 

targets also differ by subject and by grade level; 

just looking only at eighth-grade mathematics, 

the targets in 2007–08 ranged from 33 percent in 

Maine to 86 percent in Tennessee. 

Variation in Definitions 

Because states establish academic content area 

achievement standards for proficiency relative to 

their content standards and assessments, 

“proficiency” can, and does, vary from state 

to state.19

One way to measure the amount of variation in 

proficiency standards is to compare each state’s 

test against a common external benchmark. The 

only benchmark available across all states is the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP). An analysis examined how state 

proficiency levels in reading and mathematics for 

grades 4 and 8 varied against this common 

metric (National Center for Education Statistics, 

2007a; National Center for Education Statistics, 

2007b). 

States varied widely in the levels at which they 

set their state performance standards in reading 

and mathematics, when compared to the 

common standard, NAEP. Using NAEP as a 

common external metric, state standards for 

proficiency in eighth-grade mathematics under 

NCLB range from a NAEP equivalent score of 

approximately 230 to 311 (on a 500-point scale). 

Similar patterns occurred in fourth-grade 

mathematics and in reading at both grade levels. 

As a result, an EL deemed to be proficient in the 

content areas in one state might not be 

considered proficient in another state, and 

cross-state comparisons and nationwide 

estimates of the percentage of students who are 

proficient must be interpreted with caution. 

This variation in academic achievement 

standards should be taken into account in any 

examination of state variation in the numbers 

and percentages of districts or schools that 

make or do not make AYP or are identified 

for improvement. 

States may determine performance of 

the EL subgroup differently for Title 

III AMAO 3 than they do for Title I AYP. 

In many instances, states use the same AYP 

results determined through their Title I 
14 

accountability system for Title III AMAO 3 and 

were encouraged to do so under the 

Department’s Notice of Final Interpretations, 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2008b). However, 

states were granted the flexibility to calculate a 

separate AMAO 3 determination solely for 

students who are served under Title III.20

Accordingly, in their AMAO 3 calculations, 

states might choose to only include ELs in 

districts receiving Title III subgrants and/or 

only include individual ELs who receive 

Title III-funded services. 

Districts that belong to Title III consortia also 

may receive an AMAO 3 determination that 

differs from their Title I AYP for the EL subgroup 

determination if their state opts to calculate 

AMAOs for the Title III consortium as a whole 

rather than for individual districts within the 

consortium. In such cases, consortia districts’ 

AMAO 3 determination depends on the 

performance of ELs in the other districts within 

their consortium and so, EL proficiency scores in 

lower-performing districts might be pulled up by 

scores from the consortium’s higher-performing 

districts, or vice-versa. Furthermore, because 

districts within Title III consortia tend to have 

smaller EL populations, they may not have 

enough ELs on their own to qualify for a Title 

I AYP for the EL subgroup determination 

(i.e., because they do not meet their state’s 

minimum n size21 for Title I) but still qualify for a 

Title III AMAO 3 determination when they are 

grouped together with the other districts in 

their consortium. 

Are states and districts meeting 

their annual performance goals 

for Title III? 

Most states did not meet their 

state-level Title III performance goals 

for 2007–2008, but at the district 

level, more than half the districts 

nationwide did. 

For the 2007–08 school year, only 11 states met 

all of their AMAOs. These 11 states varied widely 

in their AMAO targets and represent diverse EL 

populations. This set of 11 include states with 

large numbers of ELs (Texas and New York); 

states with moderate to high density EL 

populations (Nevada, New Jersey, Wisconsin); 

states with moderate EL populations 

(5–10 percent); states with growing EL 

populations (Tennessee, Alabama, Maryland, 

Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin); and West 

Virginia, a state with a small number and low 

percentage of ELs. 

According to state reports, 59 percent of 

subgrantee districts and consortia across the 

nation met all of their AMAOs in 2007–08.22

States with larger numbers of Title 

III subgrantees (e.g., Texas, which reported 

having 1,019 subgrantees in 2007–08)23

contribute more heavily to the national 

percentage and often had a proportion of 

districts that met all AMAOs higher than the 

national average. For example, of the 

2,740 subgrantees that met all of their AMAOs in 

2007–08, 1,005 of them were located in the state 

of Texas alone.24
15 

As Exhibit 6 shows, subgrantees were more 

likely to meet individual AMAOs than to meet 

all AMAOs.25 Comparing subgrantees’ 

performance across the three individual AMAOs, 

states reported that nationwide, fewer 

subgrantees met AMAO 3 than met AMAOs 1 or 

2 (70 percent, compared with 85 and 80 percent, 

respectively) in 2007–08. Similar patterns emerge 

when examining subgrantee performance by 

state. Most states reported that at least half of 

their subgrantees met AMAOs 1 and 2 (40 states 

and the District of Columbia and 39 states and 

the District of Columbia, respectively) while 

noticeably fewer (31 states) reported that at 

least half of their subgrantees met AMAO 3. 

Meeting all AMAOs was more challenging: Only 

25 states reported that at least half of their 

subgrantees met all of their AMAOs in 2007–08. 

Nine states reported that none of their 

subgrantees met all AMAOs, while only four 

states—Maryland, Nevada, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin—reported that all of their 

subgrantees met all AMAOs in 2007–08. 

One-quarter of Title III subgrantees 

were designated as missing AMAOs for 

2 or 4 years consecutively based on the 

2007–08 school year and prior years’ 

test results. 

If a state designates that a Title III subgrantee 

has not met its AMAOs for 2 consecutive years, 

the district or consortium must develop an 

improvement plan with support from the state. 

If the subgrantee has not met AMAOs for 

4 consecutive years, the state must require the 

district or consortium to modify its curriculum, 

program, and method of instruction or assess 

whether the district will receive additional funds 

and be required to replace educational 

personnel relevant to not meeting these 

objectives. 

According to state reports, approximately 

17 percent of Title III subgrantees had missed 

AMAOs for 2 consecutive years based on 

2007–08 and prior years’ test results.26 At the 

Exhibit 6: Percentage of Title III Subgrantees That Met Their AMAOs for the 

2007–08 School Year 

Exhibit reads: According to state reports, 85 percent of Title III subgrantees nationwide met AMAO 1 at the end of the 

2007-08 school year. 

Notes: 1. Pennsylvania’s 100 subgrantees are not included in these analyses as the state did not report AMAO performance data for 

2007–08. 2. Texas’s 1,019 subgrantees are not included in the analysis of AMAO 1 as the state did not report AMAO 1 performance 

information for 2007–08. 3. Three Massachusetts subgrantees are not included in the analysis of AMAO 1 because they lacked the 

2 years of performance data needed for the state to make an AMAO determination. 4. Eight Vermont subgrantees are not included in 

the analysis of AMAO 3 because they did not meet the minimum "n" size (40) for making AYP determinations under the state’s 

Title I Accountability Workbook rules. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2007–08 (n =3,655 to 4,677 subgrantees) 

59%

70%

80%

85%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AMAOs (All) 

n=4677 subgrantees

AMAO 3 (AYP) 

n=4669 subgrantees

AMAO 2 (Proficiency) 

n=4677 subgrantees

AMAO 1 (Progress) 

n=3655 subgrantees

Percentage of Title III Subgrantees

AMAO
16 

Exhibit 7: Number of States in Which Various Proportions of Subgrantees Missed AMAOs for 

2 or 4 Consecutive Years, at the End of the 2007–08 School Year 

Exhibit reads: Nine states and the District of Columbia reported that a majority (half or more) of their Title III subgrantees were 

designated as missing their AMAOs for 2 consecutive years based on 2007–08 and prior years’ test results. 

Notes: 1. Pennsylvania and Missouri are not included in these analyses as these states did not report data on the number of Title 

III subgrantees that missed AMAOs for 2 or 4 consecutive years based on 2007–08 and prior years’ test results. 2. In 2007–08, the 

District of Columbia reported having five Title III subgrantees, including charter schools. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2007–08 (n = 48 states and the District of Columbia) 

same point in time, about 9 percent of Title III 

subgrantees had missed AMAOs for 

4 consecutive years.27

Over 40 states and the District of Columbia28

reported that at least one of their Title 

III subgrantees had missed AMAOs for 

2 consecutive years based on 2007–08 and prior 

years’ test results. Nineteen states and the 

District of Columbia reported that at least 

one subgrantee had missed AMAOs for 

4 consecutive years at that time (see Exhibit 7). 

While these subgrantees became subject to the 

accountability actions described above, it is 

unclear whether all states have applied such 

actions to these subgrantees. State and Local 

Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, 

Volume IX—Accountability Under NCLB: Final 

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

found that, as of 2006–07, 19 states were not yet 

imposing accountability actions due to delays in 

their development of ELP standards, assessments, 

and AMAOs and concerns over the validity of 

their AMAO determinations, but intended to do 

so once they had accurate data. 

Majority of 

Subgrantees 

Designated

(9 states and 

DC)

Less Than 

Half of 

Subgrantees 

Designated

(31 states)

No 

Subgrantees 

Designated

(8 states)

Number of States With Subgrantees 

Designated as Missing AMAOs for 

2 Consecutive Years Based on 2007–08 

and Prior Years' Test Results

Majority of 

Subgrantees 

Designated

(5 states)

Less Than 

Half of 

Subgrantees 

Designated

(14 states and 

DC)

No 

Subgrantees 

Designated

(29 states)

Number of States With Subgrantees 

Designated as Missing AMAOs for 

4 Consecutive Years Based on 2007–08 

and Prior Years' Test Results
17 

What types of subgrantees are 

designated as repeatedly 

missing their annual 

performance goals for Title III? 

In a 4-state sample, subgrantees with 

high proportions of ELs were most 

likely to have been designated as 

having missed AMAOs for 2 or more 

consecutive years under Title III based 

on the 2007–08 school year and prior 

years’ test results. In three out of 

four states sampled, high-poverty, 

high-minority, and urban subgrantees 

were also more likely to have 

been designated. 

Based on an analysis of 4 states (see 

methodology text box below for how states 

were determined), Title III subgrantees with 

higher proportions of EL, low-income, and 

minority students were often more likely to be 

designated29 as having missed AMAOs for 2 or 

more consecutive years than subgrantees with 

lower proportions of such students. As illustrated 

in Exhibit 8: 

♦ In all four states, larger percentages of Title 

III subgrantees with high proportions of ELs 

were designated under Title III, compared 

with Title III subgrantees with low to 

medium proportions of ELs. 

♦ In Arizona, California, and New York, larger 

percentages of high-poverty subgrantees 

were designated under Title III than were 

low-poverty subgrantees. Larger proportions 

of high-minority subgrantees were 

designated under Title III in those three 

states as well. 

♦ In Arizona, New York, and North Carolina, 

Title III subgrantees located in central cities 

were more likely to be designated than were 

their counterparts in suburban or 

rural areas. 

In an analysis of three states, half of 

subgrantee districts designated under 

Title III also were identified for 

improvement under Title I based on 

2007–08 school year and prior years’ 

test results. 

Much of the attention focused on NCLB has been 

centered on the accountability provisions under 

Title I, NCLB’s largest program (U.S. Department 

of Education, 2010). Analyses were conducted to 

examine whether Title III subgrantees were 

designated at the district level under both Title I 

and Title III accountability provisions, Title I 

accountability provisions only, or Title III 

accountability provisions only. 

Fifty percent of subgrantees designated under 

Title III (192 of 385) also were identified for 

improvement under Title I at the district level 

based on the 2007–08 school year and prior 

years’ test results in the three states analyzed30

(see Exhibit 9). The law requires states to apply 

consequences and provide supports to these 

subgrantees under both accountability systems. 

Without Title III accountability, the remaining 

50 percent of subgrantees (193 of 385) 

designated under Title III would not have 

encountered the pressure and support 

potentially generated by accountability 

consequences at the district level. A 

supplementary analysis of these 193 subgrantees 

that were designated only under Title 

III indicated that many of the subgrantee districts 

did experience Title I accountability at the school 

level, though not necessarily for their EL 

subgroup. Specifically, in 33 percent of these 

subgrantee districts, a majority of Title I schools 

were identified for improvement under Title I, 

and 60 percent of these subgrantee districts had 

at least one school identified for improvement 

under Title I. Supplementary analyses also 

revealed that the subgrantee districts designated 

only under Title III were disproportionally small 

and rural.31
18 

Exhibit 8: Percentage of Title III Subgrantees in Four States That Were Designated As 

Having Missed Their AMAOs for 2 or More Consecutive Years, by State and by 

Subgrantee EL Level, Poverty Level, Minority Level, Urbanicity, and Subgrantee Size, 

2008–09 School Year 

Level Arizona California New York North Carolina 

Total Subgrantees 59% 39% 17% 45%

Subgrantee EL Level 

 5 percent or greater EL 67% 43% 23% 55%

 0 to <5 percent EL 41% 9% 9% 34%

Subgrantee Poverty Level 

 75 percent or greater poverty 71% 59% 55% 50%*

 35 to <75 percent poverty 54% 43% 20% 44%

 0 to <35 percent poverty 60% 14% 7% 50%

Subgrantee Minority Level 

 75 percent or greater minority 73% 49% 24% 0%*

 25 to <75 percent minority 51% 31% 21% 48%

 0 to <25 percent minority 41% 16% 5% 43%

Urbanicity

 Central city 68% 33% 33% 67%

 Urban fringe 60% 40% 11% 47%

 Rural 49% 51% 10% 39%

Subgrantee Size 

 More than 10,000 students 88% 35% 26% 55%

 2,500 to 10,000 students 67% 36% 11% 32%

 Less than 2,500 students 50% 46% 23% 100%*

Exhibit reads: Fifty-nine percent of Arizona subgrantees were designated as missing their AMAOs for two or more 

consecutive years under Title III based on 2007–08 and prior years’ test results. Sixty-seven percent of Arizona subgrantees 

with EL populations of five percent or greater were designated as missing their AMAOs for two or more consecutive years under 

Title III based on 2007–08 and prior years’ test results.

Note: *means n < 10 Title III subgrantees 

Source: U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD), EDFacts6; 

state lists of Title III designation status (n = 215 Title III subgrantees in Arizona; 622 Title III subgrantees in California; 62 Title 

III subgrantees in North Carolina; and 190 Title III subgrantees in New York). 

Implications 

Literature on accountability tells us that for a 

results-based accountability system to function as 

intended, it must focus attention on goals, 

enhance the availability of valid information on 

which to base decisions, increase motivation to 

strive for goals, and build and focus capacity to 

improve32 (Fuhrman, 1999; Goertz, Floden, and 

O’Day, 1995; O’Day and Bitter, 2002). Title III 

provisions aim to serve these functions by 

requiring states to institute annual performance 

objectives, report regularly on school systems’ 

performance in meeting those objectives, and 

impose consequences on jurisdictions that miss 

their objectives. 

Consistent with the spirit behind the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the 

No Child Left Behind Act, Title III accountability 

provisions have shone a spotlight on the nation’s 

ELs in order to promote state and local efforts to 

improve education outcomes for this diverse and 

traditionally underserved population of students. 

Based on an analyies of a small subset of states, 

Title III accountability has focused attention on 

these students by designating an additional set 

of districts that were not identified for 
19 

Methodology for Analysis of Title III Subgrantees Designated as Missing AMAOs for 2 or More Years

Analyses to examine the characteristics of Title III subgrantees designated as missing AMAOs for 2 or more years under Title 

III were conducted on a subset of four states: Arizona, California, New York, and North Carolina. These states were selected from a 

set of nine states with available data to ensure variation in regional location and an adequate number of Title III-designated 

districts within each state to perform state-level analyses. National-level analyses were not feasible, due to the lack of 

completeness of 2006–07 and 2007–08 Title III-related data provided by state education officials through EDFacts6

, a centralized 

data warehouse established by the U.S. Department of Education that features performance, financial, and other data—including 

Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs) information—reported by state education agencies (SEAs), local education 

agencies (LEAs) and schools. In 2007–08, several new data elements were first required to be reported in EDFacts. Future data 

will be more complete and allow further analyses.

For Arizona, California, and New York, the Title III designation status (i.e., whether or not a subgrantee had missed its AMAOs for 

two or more consecutive years based on 2007–08 and prior years’ test results) was collected for all 2007–08 Title III subgrantees 

from data located on state education agency Web sites or provided by state education officials. For North Carolina, the population 

of Title III subgrantees was constructed through data provided by state education officials through EDFacts6

—specifically, the 

number of districts in 2007–08 for which states reported AMAO 1 and/or AMAO 2 as “met” or “did not meet” (North Carolina did 

not report data for AMAO 3 in 2007–08). Subgrantees designated under Title III were determined through extant data collected 

from the state Title III director in spring 2009. The resulting dataset contains: 

• Arizona: 215 Title III subgrantees; 

• California: 622 Title III subgrantees, including 56 charter schools that are not their own LEA according to the U.S. 

Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD); 

• New York: 190 Title III subgrantees; and 

• North Carolina: 62 Title III subgrantees. 

The dataset does not include two Title III subgrantees in Arizona and six subgrantees in California that were districts that did not 

exist prior to 2007–08. The dataset does not include demographic information on these subgrantees as they were not included in 

the NCES CCD for 2006–07. 

Demographics and Title I accountability information were collected through the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) for 2006-07 and EDFacts data for 2007–08, respectively. 

improvement under the Title I accountability 

system, thereby nearly doubling the number of 

EL-serving districts facing accountability 

consequences during the 2008–09 school year. 

However, several factors regarding states’ 

implementation of Title III accountability 

provisions may have interfered with the effective 

operation of the Title III accountability system to 

date. For example, differences in how states 

have set their AMAO targets and definitions 

inhibit states’ ability to compare their 

performance against other states. Furthermore, 

because states have frequently revised the 

manner in which their AMAOs are defined 

and/or calculated, it has been difficult up to this 

point for states and districts to assess their 

performance over time since the criteria for 

meeting their performance goals may be 

significantly different from year to year. Plus, as 

a result of the delays in finalizing valid AMAOs, 

some states were delayed in imposing 

consequences on districts for not meeting AMAO 

targets. This lack of stability, consistency, and 

transparency surrounding the implementation of 

Title III performance objectives raises concerns 

that states’ Title III accountability systems may 

not be effectively informing and motivating 

improvement at this time. 
20 

Exhibit 9: Number of Title III Subgrantee Districts in Three States That Were 

Identified for Improvement Under Title I and/or Designated Under Title III Based on the 

2007–08 School Year and Prior Years’ Test Results 

Exhibit reads: Based on 2007–08 and prior years’ test results, 115 Title III subgrantee districts in three states were identified for 

improvement under Title I, but were not designated under Title III.

Notes: 1. Title I improvement status data based on 2007–08 and prior years’ test results were not available for New York. 2. The 

56 California charter schools that, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

Common Core of Data (CCD), are not their own local education agency (LEA) but are affiliated with other LEAs were excluded from the 

analysis. 

Source: EDFacts6 (n = 500 Title III districts that were designated under Title I and/or Title III accountability systems in Arizona, 

California, and North Carolina for 500 districts in these states). 
21 

National Evaluation of Title III Implementation 

This brief and its two companion briefs, Title III Policy: State of the States and Title III Accountability and District Improvement 

Efforts: A Closer Look, were written during the early stage of the National Evaluation of Title III Implementation, a U.S. 

Department of Education study being conducted by the American Institutes for Research. These three briefs are precursors to 

the collection and analysis of nationally representative data and in-depth case study data of Title III-funded districts to examine 

state and local implementation of Title II standards, assessments, and accountability systems under 

that evaluation. 

The National Evaluation of Title III Implementation will provide more in-depth explorations of some of the issues presented in 

this brief, including analyses regarding 

• The procedures and considerations guiding states’ development and revision of their AMAO targets and definitions; 

• Districts’ awareness of their AMAO targets and performance status; 

• States’ and districts’ AMAO performance results through the 2008–09 school year; and 

• Characteristics of districts designated as having repeatedly missed their AMAO targets. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors wish to thank all individuals who contributed their time and efforts throughout data collection and drafting 

this brief. Specifically, we would like to express our appreciation to AIR staff, consultants, and subcontractors, Bea 

Birman, Ellen Forte, Kenji Hakuta, and Jennifer O’Day, for their thoughtful suggestions, comments, and guidance, and to 

the following reviewers at the U.S. Department of Education: Andy Abrams, Supreet Anand, Tom Corwin, Susan Craig, 

Liz Eisner, Britt Jung, Daphne Kaplan, Ron Petracca, and Phil Rosenfelt. The contributions of these individuals were 

essential for the production of the brief. The authors also gratefully acknowledge Judith Wilde of the National 

Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition for her assistance in this endeavor. 
22 

Notes 

1

 The term English Learner refers to a student whose 

primary language is a language other than English and 

whose level of English proficiency is insufficient to 

support academic learning in a regular classroom in 

which English is the language of instruction. The 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) uses 

the term limited English proficient (LEP) for such 

students; however, it has since become more common 

to use the English Learner term. As such, this brief uses 

English Learner to refer to students who require 

additional instructional supports to fully participate in 

all-English classrooms until they achieve the requisite 

level of English proficiency. 

2

 While Section 9101(25) of ESEA features a broad 

definition of students who are “limited English 

proficient,” states have flexibility to set their own 

criteria and procedures for operationalizing that 

definition to identify students as ELs. For a discussion 

of the variation in states’ approaches to EL 

identification, see the companion brief, Title III Policy: 

State of the States. 

3

 Section 3114 of ESEA restricts states from issuing Title 

III subgrants of less than $10,000; however, districts 

with EL enrollments too small to qualify for a $10,000 

subgrant on their own are permitted to form consortia 

with other districts in the state to receive a subgrant 

based on the consortia’s collective EL enrollment. 

4

 For a discussion of other Title III provisions designed 

to improve education outcomes for ELs, see the 

companion brief, Title III Policy: State of the States. 

5

 The briefs in this series were written for a policy 

audience but appeal to a range of different 

stakeholders. Each brief has its own focus and features 

key contextual information related to that focus. 

Accordingly, multiple briefs may contain similar 

information. 

6

 States submit K–12 education data at the state, 

district, and school levels to the U.S. Department of 

Education including data on schools, services, staffing, 

students, and education outcomes. 

7

 The information presented throughout this brief 

regarding the total numbers and percentages of 

students identified as ELs in 2007–08 both nationally 

and in individual states is based on states’ accounts of 

their Number of All LEP Students in the State in K–12, 

as reported in their 2007–08 Consolidated State 

Performance Reports (CSPRs). The accuracy of these 

state-reported data has not been validated by the U.S. 

Department of Education or other external parties. The 

2007–08 CSPR defines the Number of All LEP Students 

in the State as the number of “students assessed for 

English language proficiency (ELP) using an annual 

State ELP assessment as required under [Title I] Section 

1111(b)(7) of ESEA in the reporting year and who meet 

the LEP definition in Section 9101(25).” As noted 

above, criteria for operationalizing the LEP definition 

in Section 9101(25) vary from state to state. Moreover, 

states may employ somewhat different EL 

identification criteria for different purposes, such as 

Title I, Title III, and state-funded programs. 

Notes Spacemaker 

8

 To calculate the proportion of K–12 students 

identified as ELs both nationally and by state, the study 

team divided the total number of ELs that states 

reported in their CSPRs by the states’ projected fall 

2007 total K–12 enrollment, using the projected 

enrollment growth rates published in the Digest of 

Education Statistics on March 19, 2009 (retrieved on 

March 19, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/

digest/d08/tables/dt08_033.asp). 

9

 This is based on states’ reports in their 2007–08 

Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs) of 

the top five most commonly spoken languages 

among their ELs and the number of ELs who speak 

each language. 

10 Immigrant students are defined in ESEA as students 

between the ages of 3 and 21 who were not born in 

any state in the U.S. and have not been attending one 

or more U.S. schools for more than 3 full academic 

years. [ESEA, Section 3301(6)(A)(B)(C)]. 

11 This is based on states’ reports in their 2007–08 

Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs) of the 

number of immigrant students enrolled. To calculate 

the proportion of immigrant students, the study team 

divided the number of enrolled immigrant students 

that states reported in their 2007–08 Consolidated 

State Performance Reports (CSPRs) by the states’ 

projected fall 2007 total student enrollment, using the 

projected enrollment growth rates published in the 

Digest of Education Statistics on March 19, 2009. 

Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/

programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_033.asp). 

12 The number of ELs participating in Title III-funded 

programs in 2007–08 was generated based on the 

reports of 50 states and the District of Columbia in the 

2007–08 Consolidated State Performance Reports 

(CSPRs). The number of ELs participating in Title 

III-funded programs in 2002–03 was generated based 

on the reports of 48 states in the 2002–03 Title 

III biennial data collection and 2003–04 reports for 

Hawaii, Michigan, and the District of Columbia. 

13 Earlier research has identified a significantly more 

rapid increase of 45 percent in the nation’s EL 

population over the previous five-year period between 

1997–98 and 2002–03 (National Clearninghouse for 

English Language Acquisition, 2007). Because Title 

III was signed into law in 2002, Title III-served counts 

are not available for the previous five-year period. 

14 Title I regulations also specify parameters regarding 

which types of ELs must be included in the EL subgroup 

for the purpose of AYP calculations. In 2006, the 

Department issued Title I regulations granting states 

flexibility to (1) exclude the scores of recently arrived 

ELs who have attended U.S. schools for 12 months or 

less and (2) include the scores of former ELs for up to 

2 years after they no longer meet the State's definition 

for ELs. These regulations address concerns that, due to 

the nature of the EL subgroup which loses ELs who 

demonstrate English proficiency and gains new ELs 

with lower levels of English proficiency, it can be 

difficult for states, districts, and schools to show 

academic gains for ELs on state content assessments. 
23 

See the companion brief Title III Policy: State of the 

States for further discussion of the challenges 

associated with the revolving nature of the EL 

subgroup. 

15 See U.S. Department of Education, 2003, for further 

information on AMAO requirements 

16 Note that according to the Department’s Notice of 

Final Interpretations (U.S. Department of Education, 

2008b), states may only separate AMAO targets based 

on the amount of time ELs have had access to 

language instruction educational programs: “It would 

be inconsistent with the statute to set different 

expectations for different LEP students served by Title 

III based on their current language proficiency, 

individual abilities, time in the United States, or any 

criteria other than time in a language instruction 

educational program.” 

17 States may incorporate methods to ensure that 

AMAO calculations are valid (i.e., measure what they 

claim to measure) and reliable (i.e., avoid year-to-year 

fluctuations unrelated to ELs’ English proficiency and 

achievement levels) to address such issues as random 

fluctuations in the individual students tested, sampling 

or measurement error, and students who do not 

receive instruction for a full academic year. 

18 For example, in response to input from its member 

states, the WIDA Consortium determined that students’ 

overall composite score on the ACCESS for ELLs (which 

is currently the most widely used state ELP assessment) 

would be calculated as 15 percent listening, 15 percent 

speaking, 35 percent reading, and 35 percent writing, 

with the comprehension composite determined as 

30 percent listening and 70 percent reading (see 

Abedi, 2007). 

19 Such variation does not imply that states are out of 

compliance with ESEA. Section 1111(b)(1) requires that 

states establish challenging academic standards, but 

the law does not include specific requirements 

regarding the standards’ level of rigor. 

20 In addition, according to the Department’s Notice of 

Final Interpretations (U.S. Department of Education, 

2008b), a state is not required to include in its AMAO 

3 calculation the scores of Title III-served ELs whose 

scores are excluded from the state’s AYP determination 

under Title I, Section 200.20(f). This could include the 

scores of (1) recently arrived ELs who have attended 

U.S. schools for less than 12 months and (2) ELs who 

have been enrolled for less than a full academic year. 

21 The minimum n size refers to the minimum number 

of students in a particular subgroup that must be met 

for a local agency to be held accountable for that 

subgroup’s performance. 

22 Data regarding 2007–08 state and subgrantee 

AMAO performance are based on state reports 

submitted in the 2007–08 Consolidated State 

Performance Reports (CSPRs). Data for Pennsylvania 

were unavailable at the time this brief was written 

because, due to data quality issues, the state was 

unable to include this information in its 2007–08 CSPR. 

Accordingly, Pennsylvania and its 100 Title III 

subgrantees have been systematically excluded from all 

analyses of AMAO performance results. 

23 Texas treats individual districts within a consortium 

as its unit of Title III accountability rather than the 

consortium as a whole. Therefore, the total number of 

“subgrantees” that Texas reported in 2007–08 counts 

stand-alone subgrantee districts as well as individual 

districts belonging to a Title III-funded consortium, 

each of which received its own AMAO determinations. 

24 According to documents found on the state's Web 

site, Texas did not report AMAO 1 (making progress in 

learning English) results in 2007–08 because 

substantive changes made to the state's assessment 

could not support comparisons between students' 

performance on the new assessment and its 

predecessor. Since AMAO 1 results were not available, 

Texas's AMAO determinations for the 2007–08 school 

year were based solely on AMAOs 2 and 3. 

25 States report in their Consolidated State 

Performance Reports (CSPRs) the number of 

subgrantees that met each AMAO. The remaining 

subgrantees that are not included in these counts 

either fell short of the AMAO target (i.e., missed the 

AMAO) or did not receive a determination for that 

AMAO (e.g., because they did not meet the state’s 

minimum n size [i.e., the minimum number of students 

in the EL subgroup required for a local agency to be 

held accountable for that subgroup’s performance] or 

because the state was unable to calculate a 

particular AMAO). 

26 If states reported in their Consolidated State 

Performance Reports (CSPRs) using a literal 

interpretation of the directions, districts that missed 

for more than 2 years consecutively were not included 

in this number. However, in some cases, states may 

have reported the number of districts that missed for 

at least 2 consecutive years and, thus, also included 

districts that missed for 3 or more consecutive years in 

these counts. The same limitation exists for states’ 

reports of the number of districts that missed AMAOs 

for 4 consecutive years. Since there is no concrete 

evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that states 

reported their figures using a literal interpretation of 

the directions. 

27 As discussed above, some states experienced 

difficulties establishing and calculating AMAOs in the 

early years of Title III implementation, and AMAOs 

have changed over the years in many states. Thus, 

missing an AMAO in a recent year may not be based on 

the same criteria as used in prior years. 

28 In 2007–08, the District of Columbia reported having 

five Title III subgrantees, which included the District of 

Columbia Public School system as well as several 

charter schools. 

29 As a shorthand, the term “designated” in this brief 

refers to subgrantee districts that missed their Title 

III AMAOs for at least 2 consecutive years, although the 

law does not contain such a term. 

30 Title I improvement status data were not reported 

for New York. 
24 

31 One factor that might explain why small and rural 

districts were more likely to be designated under Title 

III than identified for improvement under Title I is the 

states’ use of larger minimum n sizes (i.e., the 

minimum number of students in the EL subgroup 

required for a local agency to be held accountable 

for that subgroup’s performance) for Title I than for 

Title III. That is, districts with small populations may 

not have had enough ELs to qualify for a Title 

I accountability rating for the EL subgroup but 

did have enough ELs to qualify for a Title III 

accountability rating. 

32 This component is explored in the third brief of this 

series, Title III Accountability and District Improvement 

Efforts: A Closer Look. 
25 

References 

Abedi, J. (Ed.) (2007). English language proficiency 

assessment in the nation: Current status and future 

practice. Davis: University of California. 

Ballantyne, K.G., Sanderman, A.R., & Levy, J. (2008). 

Educating English language learners: Building 

teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National 

Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. 

Retrieved on June 12, 2009, from 

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/practice/

mainstream_teachers.htm. 

Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & 

Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of 

America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child 

Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban 

Institute. 

Cosentino de Cohen, C., Deterding, H., and Clewell, B. 

C. (2005). Who’s left behind? Immigrant children in 

high and low LEP schools. Washington, DC: The 

Urban Institute. Retrieved on June 12, 2009, from 

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/

411231_whos_left_behind.pdf

Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, 

H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of 

English language learners: Research-based 

recommendations for serving adolescent 

newcomers. (Under cooperative agreement grant 

S283B050034 for U.S. Department of Education). 

Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center 

on Instruction. 

Fuhrman, S. H. (January 1999). The New Accountability. 

(CPRE Policy Brief Series RB-27). Philadelphia: 

Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 

University of Pennsylvania. 

Goertz, M.E., Floden, R.E., & O’Day, J. (1995). Studies of 

education reform: Systemic reform, volume I: 

Findings and conclusions (CPRE Research Report 

Series No. RR- 035A). Philadelphia: Consortium for 

Policy Research in Education. 

Hernandez, D.J., Denton, N.S., & Macartney, S.E. (2007) 

Children in immigrant families—the U.S. and 

50 states: National origins, language, and early 

education. Albany, NY: State University of New 

York, University of Albany, Child Trends and the 

Center for Social and Demographic Analysis. 

National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 

Programs. (2002). What languages do ELLs speak?

Retrieved on June 12, 2009, from 

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/

05toplangs.html

National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition. (2007). The growing numbers of limited 

English proficient students: 1999/96–2005/06.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved on July 1, 2009 

from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/

files/uploads/4/GrowingLEP_0506.pdf

References Spacemaker 

National Center for Education Statistics (2007a). 

Comparison Between NAEP and State Mathematics 

Assessment Results: 2003 (NCES 2007-471). By, 

McLaughlin, D., Bandeira de Mello, V., Blankenship, 

C., Chaney, K., Hikawa, H., Rojas, D., William, P., 

and Wolman, M. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Education. 

National Center for Education Statistics 

(2007b). Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards 

onto the NAEP scales (NCES 2007-482). Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

O’Day, J., & Bitter, C. (2003). Evaluation Study of the 

Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools 

Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools 

Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 

1999. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for 

Research. 

Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., 

KewalRamani, A., Kemp, J., Bianco, K., Dinkes, R. 

(2009). The condition of education 2009 (NCES 

2009-081). Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education. 

Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: 

Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and 

academic literacy for adolescent English language 

learners: Report for the Carnegie Corporation of 

New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent 

Education. Retrieved on June 30, 2009, from 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/

DoubletheWork.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English 

Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and 

Academic Achievement for Limited English 

Proficient Students. (2005) Biennial Report to 

Congress on the Implementation of the Title 

III State Formula Grant Program, School Years 

2002–04. Washington, DC: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English 

Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and 

Academic Achievement for Limited English 

Proficient Students. (2008a) Biennial Report to 

Congress on the Implementation of the Title 

III State Formula Grant Program, School Years 

2004–06. Washington, DC: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English 

Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and 

Academic Achievement for Limited English 

Proficient Students. (2008b). Notice of final 

interpretations of Title III of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as 

amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

(NCLB). 73 Fed. Reg. 61,828 (to be codified at 48 

C.F.R. p[t. 1). 
26 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service. (2010). State and Local 

Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, 

Volume IX—Accountability Under NCLB: Final 

Report. By, Taylor, J., Stecher, B., O’Day, J., Naftel, 

S., & Carlson-Le Floch, K. Washington, DC: Author. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2006). No 

Child Left Behind Act: Education’s data 

improvement efforts could strengthen the basis for 

distributing Title III funds. Report to Congressional 

requesters. GAO-07-140. By, Ashby, C.M. 

Washington, DC: Author. 

Zehler, A. M., Adger, C., Coburn, C., Arteagoitia, I., 

Williams, K., and Jacobson, L. (2008). Preparing to 

serve English language learner students: school 

districts with emerging English language learner 

communities. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2008–

No. 049). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National 

Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory 

Appalachia. Retrieved on June 30, 2009, from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs. 

Zehr, M.A. (2009, January 8). English-learners pose 

policy puzzle. Quality Counts 2009. Education 

Week, 28(17), 8–9, 11,13,16–17. Retrieved on June 

30, 2009, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/

articles/2009/01/08/17ell.h28.html

Zehr, M. A. (2003, November 19). English proficiency 

can take a while in state ESEA plans. Education 

Week, 23(12), 1,16. Retrieved on June 30, 2009, 

from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/

2003/11/19/12nclb.h23.html?tkn=WMZFMtDajrcTCpt

7bPUCozR8O55jsN%2BWmRDS&print=1