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 Ramsey and Jennifer O’Day 

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 Policy: State of the States 

ESEA Evaluation Brief: The English Language Acquisition, Language 

Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act 

May 2010 

Over the past decade, concern over how 

best to meet the needs of English 

Learners (ELs)1

 has increased along with 

the number of these students in U.S. 

schools. To address this concern, the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), includes 

provisions to ensure that ELs have access 

to core academic content and gain the 

English language skills they need to meet 

state standards and be successful in 

school. Title I of ESEA requires that states 

test ELs in academic subjects of reading2

, 

mathematics, and science; that districts 

and schools be held accountable for 

meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) 

targets for this subgroup, and that states 

assess the English language proficiency of 

all EL students. Title III then specifies 

Highlights 

• Title III, in conjunction with Title I subgroup accountability, has focused 

much-needed attention on the performance of English Learners (ELs) and 

generated considerable activity at the state level to comply with new 

standards-based provisions. By 2006, all states had developed English 

language proficiency (ELP) standards, ELP assessments, and accountability 

measures for monitoring progress of EL students, though specific targets 

were still being finalized in many states. Collaboration among states 

resulted in 19 states sharing the same ELP standards and assessments and 

another 8 states sharing a different ELP assessment. Such collaboration 

could inform current efforts to generate common standards in core 

academic subjects. 

• According to all six state Title III directors and all nine district Title 

III coordinators interviewed in spring 2009, the current dual focus on 

academic content performance and English language proficiency for EL 

students has created opportunities and challenges for serving this 

population and has brought into sharper focus the need to coordinate Title 

I and Title III services. 

• Unlike other subgroups under ESEA accountability provisions, English 

learners are defined primarily by their targeted outcome—English 

language proficiency. The developmental nature of language acquisition 

and the criteria used for identifying and exiting members of the EL 

subgroup create challenges for accountability because the subgroup’s 

composition is in a state of continuous flux caused by newly arriving and 

exiting students. 
2 

requirements regarding the English language 

proficiency standards, assessments, and 

accountability measures for districts receiving 

Title III funds. 

This brief focuses on state implementation of 

Title III, describing the title’s main provisions, 

summarizing state actions to date to implement 

those provisions, and outlining key benefits and 

challenges that have emerged.3

English learners: a growing and 

challenged population 

Any discussion of federal policy and EL students 

must take into account both the growing size of 

the national EL population and its diversity. In 

the 2007–08 school year, the K–12 EL population 

in the 50 states and the District of Columbia 

totaled approximately 4.7 million, or close to 

10 percent of the K–12 enrollment in public 

schools nationwide.4

 This is an increase of 

about150 percent over 1989–90 (National 

Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 

2008a).5

 Of these 4.7 million ELs, 4.4 million 

(94 percent) were enrolled in districts receiving 

Title III funds.6

ESEA mandates that all students meet state 

standards, that classrooms in core subjects be 

staffed with highly qualified teachers, and that 

parents be notified of their children’s progress, 

to the extent practicable in a language that the 

parent can understand. Fulfilling these 

requirements for ELs presents unique challenges 

in curriculum and assessment design, 

professional development, human and financial 

resource allocation, teacher certification, and 

communication between the school and family 

members. These challenges are magnified by the 

sheer numbers of ELs to be served. 

Several aspects of the size, distribution, and 

challenges of the EL population in the nation’s 

schools are important to note, as they provide 

Methodology and Data Sources

This brief focuses on the question: How have states implemented the core provisions of Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001? Much of the information for this evaluation brief builds on data collected as part of the National Longitudinal Study of No 

Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the Study of State Implementation of No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB) and reported in Chapter 

V of State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX—Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010).7

 That NCLB accountability report drew on data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child 

Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the Study of State Implementation of No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB). Data sources included 

telephone interviews with state education officials; analysis of extant data from all 50 states, and the District of Columbia; and 

nationally representative surveys of districts, schools, and teachers. State interviews for the SSI-NCLB were conducted between 

September 2004 and February 2005 (Wave I) and between September 2006 and February 2007 (Wave II) with state officials who 

had primary responsibility for Title III implementation. The interview protocols for both waves of data collection addressed topics 

including standards, assessments, accountability for English Learners. The SSI-NCLB collected such documents as the annual 

state Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs). Unless indicated otherwise, all references to patterns across the 

50 states and the District of Columbia are drawn from the data and analyses presented in U.S. Department of Education, 2010. 

To address emergent issues, study team members also collected new data for this brief from a sample of state informants and 

extended prior analyses of extant sources. Additional informational telephone interviews with six state Title III directors in spring 

2009 were conducted to update information obtained in the SSI-NCLB interviews that were conducted in the 2006–07 school 

year. These interviews focused particularly on the state’s implementation of Title III standards, assessments, and accountability 

measures. The sampled states—Arkansas, California, Indiana, Montana, New York, and North Carolina—were chosen to capture 

variation in regional location, the nature and diversity of the EL population, and major EL policies. The study team also interviewed 

nine district Title III officials from five of the selected states. Due to the small sample size, the experiences and perceptions of the 

state and district officials with whom study team members spoke cannot be generalized across the nation. However, because of 

the range of contextual issues and EL populations represented in these jurisdictions and the consistency across them on some 

questions, the findings from these interviews can offer insight into how a diverse group of states and districts have experienced 

Title III implementation thus far. Finally, the team also interviewed or received written input from a small number (six) of 

researchers and university-based experts in the field of EL education to gain additional perspectives on relevant progress and 

challenges in Title III design and implementation. 
3 

the context for state implementation of Title 

III provisions.8

♦ Public schools in every state enroll ELs, 

although the numbers and percentages vary 

across states. In 2007–08, the numbers of ELs 

enrolled in each state ranged from over 

1.5 million students in California (24 percent 

of the state’s total K–12 enrollment) to less 

than 2,000 students in West Virginia and 

Vermont (where ELs represented 

approximately 1 and 2 percent of the total 

state enrollment, respectively). Exhibit 

1 depicts this variation in enrollment across 

the fifty states. 

♦ Some states and localities with 

previously small populations of ELs 

have experienced very high growth 

rates in recent years. As a result, the 

proportional growth in this target group has 

shifted from states like California, Florida, 

and Texas that traditionally have had larger 

EL groups—and thus more experience in 

meeting their needs—to states in the 

Southeast, Midwest, and interior West 

where these issues are relatively more recent 

(Cosentino de Cohen, Deterding, and 

Clewell, 2005). 

♦ Many states face the additional 

challenge of burgeoning numbers of 

ELs at the secondary school level (Capps 

et al., 2005). During the 1990s, the 

secondary school EL population grew by 

64 percent, compared with 46 percent 

growth at the elementary school level. Data 

from the Schools and Staffing Survey 

(1993–94) from the Department of 

Education’s National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) indicated that ELs at the 

secondary school level have been less likely 

than are elementary school ELs to receive 

English as a Second Language (ESL) 

instruction or bilingual instruction 

(Ruiz-de-Velasco, Fix, and Clewell, 2000). 

Exhibit 1: Number of ELs Enrolled in K–12, 2007–08 School Year 

Exhibit Reads: The darkest-colored states reported that over 100,000 students enrolled in K–12 were identified as EL in the 

2007–08 school year. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2007–08 (n = 50 states and the District of Columbia). 
4 

♦ The linguistic composition of the EL 

population—both in the diversity of 

languages spoken and the degree of 

linguistic isolation of the students—

varies greatly across the states, across 

districts within states, and across schools 

within many districts. While the majority of 

ELs speak Spanish (90 percent), over 

400 languages are spoken among students 

in American public schools (National 

Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition, 2002). In many California 

districts, for example, a typical school will 

enroll EL students with more than six home 

languages other than English,9

 a situation 

that increases the complexity of 

communication with both students and 

parents. Communication difficulties can be 

particularly pronounced if students come 

from linguistically isolated households 

(i.e., if no one in the household aged 

14 or over speaks English very well) or 

communities. Nationally in 2000, six out 

of seven ELs in grades 1–5 lived in 

linguistically isolated households; in 

secondary schools, two out of three ELs 

did so (Capps, et al., 2005). 

♦ The majority of ELs in U.S. schools face 

not only the challenges of learning a 

new language, but also those that 

derive from poverty. In 2000, 68 percent 

of ELs in pre-K through grade 5 and 

60 percent of ELs in grades 6–12 came from 

low-income families10 (Capps et al., 2005). 

These rates were nearly twice as high as the 

rates for English proficient children in 

comparable grades (Capps et al., 2005). 

What are the major provisions of 

Title III? 

The 2001 reauthorization of ESEA (the No Child 

Left Behind Act) was not the first attempt to 

address the needs of ELs through federal 

legislation. In 1968, 3 years after its initial 

passage, ESEA was amended to include Title VII, 

the Bilingual Education Act, which drew national 

attention to the unique educational challenges 

of non-English speaking students and recognized 

bilingual education as a viable instructional 

method for economically disadvantaged 

language-minority11 students. Title VII 

underwent several amendments through the 

1970s, 80s, and 90s, expanding funding within 

the competitive grant structure by increasing 

emphasis on professional development for 

teachers and by moving toward a focus on the 

acquisition of English and away from bilingual 

education (National Clearinghouse for English 

Language Acquisition, 2008b). 

When ESEA was reauthorized as NCLB in 2001, it 

replaced the Title VII competitive grants with the 

Title III formula grants to states12 and added 

provisions focused on “promoting English 

acquisition and helping English Learners meet 

challenging content standards” (National 

Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition, 2008b). States receive Title III 

allocations and then subgrant these funds to 

districts, the primary unit of focus for this 

program. Where districts and their EL 

populations are too small to receive their own 

subgrants,13 states may allow several districts to 

join together into consortia to pool resources to 

serve ELs living in those districts.14

Explicit accountability for outcomes of ELs is a 

new requirement of ESEA and is incorporated in 

both Titles I and III of NCLB. Exhibit 2 summarizes 

the parallel provisions across these titles. 

♦ Title I requires that states develop and 

implement academic standards, aligned 

assessments, and AYP targets in 

reading/language arts and mathematics.15

ELs are to be included in these state 

assessments and in the “all students” 

category for evaluating school and district 

attainment of AYP targets. 
5 

Exhibit 2. ESEA Title I and Title III Provisions 

Provision Title I Title III 

Standards Reading/language arts, mathematics, and science English language proficiency (ELP) for ELs 

Assessments Academic assessments and an ELP assessment ELP assessment (can be same instrument used for Title I)* 

Measuring 

Progress 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

(to measure progress of all students toward 

meeting the state’s standards in 

reading/language arts and mathematics) 

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) 

(to measure progress of ELs in Title III districts toward 

meeting English language proficiency and subject matter 

standards) 

♦ In addition, under Title I schools and districts 

with sufficiently large EL populations16 are 

held accountable for ensuring that the EL 

subgroup meets AYP targets. 

Title III provisions parallel Title I provisions, with 

the goal of ELs attaining both English language 

proficiency and academic achievement. 

To determine whether or not ELs are making 

sufficient progress in learning English, Title III 

requires states to establish English language 

proficiency (ELP) standards and aligned 

assessments (distinct from state academic 

content standards and assessments in 

reading/language arts), and to measure progress 

toward and attainment of those standards for 

their EL populations. 

♦ For Title III, district and state progress is 

evaluated against annual measurable 

achievement objectives (AMAOs), and all 

districts receiving Title III funds are to be 

held accountable for meeting 

state-established AMAO targets each year. 

How are ELs identified and 

redesignated? 

While states use multiple tools for 

identifying ELs, placing them in 

appropriate language instructional 

programs, and redesignating them as 

English proficient, state ELP or other 

English proficiency tests are the 

primary measure used for these 

purposes across all states. 

To adequately target resources and monitor 

progress for their EL students, states and districts 

must first define who is an EL17 for the purposes 

of the law. ESEA (Section 9101) defines EL to 

include any individual meeting the following 

criteria: 

♦ Is between ages of 3 and 21; 

♦ Is enrolled or preparing to enroll in 

elementary or secondary school; 

* While the ELP assessment used for Title III may be the same instrument used for Title I purposes, Title III requires that the assessment 

be aligned with the state’s ELP standards. No such explicit requirement exists for Title I, because Title I does not require ELP standards. 

Source: State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX—Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010). 
6 

♦ Was not born in the United States or whose 

native language is not English; or 

— Is a Native American, Alaska Native, or 

native resident of the outlying areas18

from an environment where language 

other than English significantly impacts 

English language proficiency; 

— Is migratory, has a native language that 

is not English, and comes from an 

environment where English is not 

dominant; 

♦ Has difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or 

understanding English sufficient to deny the 

individual the: 

— Ability to meet the proficient level of 

achievement on state assessments; 

— Ability to successfully achieve in 

classrooms taught in English with no 

language supports; and 

— Opportunity to participate fully in 

American society. 

For the 2008–09 school year, 50 states and the 

District of Columbia used some English language 

proficiency assessment as a screening tool, and 

49 states also used a home language survey 

(Zehr, 2009). Additional methods used by various 

states to identify ELs included teacher judgment, 

state and/or local assessments, education 

background, parent and/or student interviews, 

and student grades. 

The EL subgroup is unique in that 

higher-performing students (i.e., those 

who attain proficiency) systematically 

move out of the subgroup to be 

replaced by students with lower levels 

of proficiency (e.g., new immigrants). 

This pattern creates complications for 

subgroup accountability as measured 

by Title I and Title III. 

The study team finds two practical implications 

of the federal definition of EL for state 

accountability policies in ESEA. 

Systematic underestimation of subgroup 

progress. First, unlike other subgroups in Title I 

and Title III, ELs are defined largely by a specified 

learning outcome (i.e., their level of English 

proficiency), which is developmental and 

changes as the student acquires the language. 

Indeed, over time students are expected to move 

out of the EL subgroup altogether and be 

reclassified as English proficient. Depending on 

state or local criteria for redesignation, this 

reclassification occurs at some point after the 

students achieve “proficiency” on an ELP 

assessment. 

Considered from 

the perspective of 

ensuring a rational 

approach to the 

allocation of scarce 

resources, this 

reclassification 

process makes 

perfect sense. As EL 

students gain 

facility in English, 

their need for 

language support 

diminishes, and such services might be more 

fruitfully targeted to those (less proficient) 

students most in need of them. From the 

perspective of subgroup accountability in ESEA, 

however, the dynamic nature of language 

proficiency and the removal of 

higher-performing students from the target 

population have important implications for 

assessing the success of schools and districts. 

Subgroup accountability under ESEA (both Title 

I and Title III) currently is based on increasing the 

percentage of students in the given group who 

are meeting performance targets (proficiency in 

state content tests, proficiency or growth on 

state ELP tests). This approach to measuring 

progress assumes a stable definition of subgroup 

membership (the denominator in the calculation 

of percentages). Membership in the EL 

“By definition 

[ELs] are not 

going to be 

proficient in 

reading 

and ELA.” 

—EL expert19
7 

accountability subgroup, however, changes in 

systematic and predictable ways over time. 

Higher-performing students are systematically 

removed from the subgroup when their English 

language skills reach a certain level, while less 

proficient students are constantly moving into 

the group, as newly-arrived ELs enter the system. 

One district informant for this brief described 

this as a “revolving door” and noted that the 

exit of higher-performing students from the EL 

designation made it difficult to “count [their] 

successes.” Indeed, subgroup progress is 

systematically underestimated because the more 

advanced students are no longer included in 

the determinations. 

Variation across states. A second observation 

about the broad definition of EL outlined in 

ESEA is that it allows states flexibility in 

determining which students compose the EL 

subgroup. The methods that states and even 

districts employ to determine proficiency 

(e.g., survey, assessment, interview, etc.) and the 

targets or cutoff scores used within each method 

vary considerably. For example, a 2006–07 review 

of state EL identification policies revealed that 

although most states (46 states and the District 

of Columbia) used a home language survey 

followed by an ELP assessment to initially 

identify ELs, 15 states and the District of 

Columbia added additional criteria, such as 

performance on the state reading/language arts 

assessment or teacher evaluation and 

recommendation. Moreover, some states used 

different assessments for identifying ELs than for 

measuring progress or exiting them from 

services. And in 15 states, the district had 

discretion in establishing criteria for identifying 

and exiting ELs based on broad guidelines 

established by the state (Wolf et al., 2008). 

This national variation in EL definitions was 

reflected in the six states interviewed for this 

brief. Five of the six Title III directors interviewed 

in spring 2009 reported that their state relied 

on the attainment of a specified score or 

proficiency level on the state ELP assessment to 

exit students from the EL subgroup. Two states 

had additional criteria, including teacher 

evaluation and recommendation, parental 

consultation, and student grades. Montana left 

both identification and redesignation 

determinations of ELs to districts, guided by 

state-developed criteria. New York’s more 

extensive identification process involves a home 

language survey, an informal reading and 

writing assessment, a student and parent 

interview, and a score on an ELP assessment, 

while the state uses only a single criterion—the 

ELP proficiency score—for reclassifying students 

as English proficient. New York is currently 

reviewing whether this single exit criterion is 

sufficient. Arkansas uses an ELP assessment score 

and parental interview for identification 

purposes and a very comprehensive process for 

redesignation, including ELP assessment data, 

student grades, teacher recommendations, and a 

proficient score on academic content tests in 

literacy and math. 

Such variation in both identification and exit 

criteria means that membership in the 

designated EL population may not be 

comparable from state to state or even district to 

district within a state. Comparisons of 

achievement or other trends for this population 

across states should thus be made with caution.20

How have states implemented 

English Language Proficiency 

standards? 

All states had implemented ELP 

standards by the 2006–07 school year, 

with the majority implementing their 

current standards after the 2003–04 

school year. 

States’ ELP standards differ from 

reading/language arts standards in both their 

purpose and their content. Designed to guide 

the development of English proficiency for 
8 

students from a different primary language 

background, ELP standards must define 

competence in speaking, listening, reading, and 

writing in English21 and must set clear levels of 

progress (English proficiency levels) that reflect 

the differences in each student’s grade level and 

English language abilities. Proficiency levels must 

include a descriptor (e.g., novice or 

intermediate), and an assessment cut score must 

correspond to each level. 

Title III requires that the ELP standards be 

aligned with the state content and academic 

achievement standards to ensure that ELs are 

learning the type of academic English necessary 

to make progress in the content areas of 

reading, mathematics, and science. 

Before Title III, ELP standards were not required 

and only 14 states had some form of such 

“standards” in place when the law was passed, 

according to data collected for the SSI-NCLB

study. Moreover, in each of these 14 states, Title 

III directors reported that the standards were not 

binding, but instead served merely as guidance 

or curriculum aids. 

Title III required states to establish ELP standards 

and implement aligned assessments before or 

during the 2002–03 school year. Despite having 

reading and mathematics standards in place well 

before NCLB passage, few states had any prior 

experience setting standards in the area of 

English language proficiency. Recognizing the 

need for flexibility, the U.S. Department of 

Education extended the deadline to the spring 

of the 2005–06 school year.22 By 2004–05, after a 

slow start, 41 states had implemented ELP 

standards; and by 2006–07, all states and the 

District of Columbia, had implemented ELP 

standards (see Exhibit 3). 

Three states implemented their current ELP 

standards during the 1998–99 and 

1999–2000 school years; three states, during 

2002–03; 13 states, during 2003–04, and the 

majority (29 states and the District of Columbia), 

after 2003–04. In 2006, 40 state Title III directors 

indicated that after their ELP standards were put 

in place, changes to the standards might include 

small revisions to ensure alignment with other 

content and academic standards and newly 

developed ELP assessment at times of larger 

Exhibit 3: Number of States by School Year in Which Current ELP Standards 

Were Implemented 

Note: Two states did not provide data on the date when current standards were first implemented. “Current” standards are those in 

place during the 2006–07 school year.

Source: State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX—Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010). 

1

2

3

13

16

10

4

0 5 10 15 20

1998–99

1999–00

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

Number of States

School Year
9 

periodic revisions to all of the state standards 

(generally every 5–7 years). 

In total, 38 states were involved with 

four multistate Enhanced Assessment 

Grant consortia, either to develop ELP 

standards and assessments or just to 

develop their assessments. By the 

2008–09 school year, 19 states were 

using the same set of common ELP 

standards and assessments,23 while 

8 additional states shared a different 

ELP assessment.24

Enhanced Assessment Grant consortia provided 

support to some states in the development of 

ELP standards. In March 2003, the U.S. 

Department of Education awarded Enhanced 

Assessment Grants under Sections 6111 and 6112 

of ESEA. The purpose of these grants was to help 

states improve the quality of state assessments, 

with award preference going to states targeting 

assessments for ELs and students with disabilities. 

Four of the recipients were multistate consortia 

that included 38 states as of 2004–05: 

♦ World-Class Instructional Design and 

Assessment (WIDA) Consortium; 

♦ State Collaborative on Assessment and 

Student Standards (SCASS) Limited English 

Proficient (LEP) (LEP-SCASS) consortium; 

♦ English Proficiency for All Students (EPAS) 

consortium; and 

♦ Mountain West Assessment Consortium 

(MWAC). 

In addition to providing support to states in 

developing their ELP assessments, some of the 

consortia assisted states in developing their ELP 

standards. For example, states participating in 

the WIDA Consortium actively used the 

consortium to develop ELP standards and the ELP 

assessment. The LEP-SCASS and MWAC consortia 

also provided some support to develop 

standards. The EPAS consortium concentrated on 

developing state assessments. 

In 2004–05, 38 state 

Title III directors 

indicated that they 

were participating in 

one of the four 

consortia to develop 

ELP standards or 

assessments. By 

2006–07, 20 states and 

the District of 

Columbia had 

developed ELP 

standards with the 

support of a 

consortium. These 

states reported that 

they either had used a 

consortium as a 

resource, or adopted a 

consortium’s ELP 

standards, or had 

adapted a consortium’s ELP standards for their 

own needs. Thirty states indicated that they had 

not used support from a consortium to develop 

their ELP standards. 

Perhaps more important than initial 

participation in the consortia is the large number 

of states that have implemented 

consortia-developed standards or assessments. As 

of 2008–09, 19 states are using a common set of 

ELP standards developed through the WIDA 

Consortium. Given the recent efforts led by the 

National Governors Association and the Council 

of Chief State School Officers to create common 

academic standards for K–12 students in 

reading/language arts and mathematics, the 

collaboration of states to produce and 

implement common ELP standards may be 

informative. 

“The fact that 

consortia have 

been developed 

to begin both 

studying ways 

to assess 

proficiency and 

to do this 

across states is 

a very good 

thing.” 

—EL expert 
10 

How have states implemented 

the assessment provisions 

for ELs? 

All states and the District of Columbia 

had implemented ELP assessments by 

2007–08 (with 45 states and the 

District of Columbia implementing their 

assessments during or after 2004–05), 

and almost half of the states developed 

their ELP assessments in collaboration 

with a multistate consortium. 

Title III requires states to assess ELs in English 

language proficiency in the four domains of 

reading, listening, speaking, and writing.25 As in 

the case of ELP standards, Title III initially 

required states to have their ELP assessment(s) in 

place during the 2002–03 school year. This 

deadline proved unrealistic, however. While 

many states used some type of English 

proficiency test prior to Title III, these tests were 

generally designed for placement purposes 

rather than to measure progress in acquiring 

language proficiency. Therefore, nearly all states 

had to develop and implement new tests to 

meet Title III requirements. Recognizing that 

assessment development and validation takes 

time, the U.S. Department of Education 

extended the deadline for ELP assessments to 

spring 2006 (see endnote 24). 

By 2007–08, 50 states and the District of 

Columbia had implemented their ELP 

assessment(s). Forty-five states and the District of 

Columbia implemented their assessments during 

or after 2004–05. Prior to 2004–05, only 

five states had implemented their ELP 

assessments (see Exhibit 4). 

States had several available means for 

developing their assessments. They adopted an 

ELP assessment from an out-of-state source 

(4 states and the District of Columbia); adapted 

assessments for their state from an out-of-state 

source (8 states); developed assessments 

specifically for or by the state (13 states); or 

developed their assessments in collaboration 

with a multistate consortium (23 states). 

Two states used multiple sources to develop their 

assessments. In fall 2006–07, state Title III 

directors considered their ELP assessments to be 

in place (or in the case of one state, reported 

that the assessment would be in place the 

following year). At that time, they anticipated 

making only small revisions to them or otherwise 

updating or aligning them when needed.26

Exhibit 4: Number of States by First School Year in Which Current Assessments 

Were Implemented 

Note: “Current” refers to those assessments in place in 2006–2007 or anticipated for the following year.

Source: State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX—Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010). 

2

1

2

11

22

12

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

2006–07

2007–08

Number of States

First School Year
11 

To ensure that ELP assessments measured ELP 

standards (in accordance with Section 3113(b)(2) 

of Title III), some states conducted alignment 

studies. According to Consolidated State 

Performance Reports for the 2005–06 school 

year, 26 states reported that they had conducted 

an independent study on the alignment of ELP 

standards and assessments, while 20 states 

reported that they had not (five did not respond 

to the question). Across both groups, some 

20 states also reported conducting other 

alignment studies.27

How are ELs assessed in 

academic content? 

By the 2007–08 school year, all but 

five states had achieved the 95 percent 

participation of ELs in state 

assessments in both reading/language 

arts and mathematics required to meet 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets 

for participation. All but one state 

assessed at least 95 percent of ELs in 

mathematics. 

Title I requires states to implement annual 

assessments in reading and mathematics in 

grades 3–8 and at least once in grades 10–12, 

and in science at least once in each of three 

grade spans: 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12. Title I also 

requires that 95 percent of students participate 

in the assessments of reading and mathematics. 

Title I testing requirements apply to all public 

elementary and secondary schools and school 

districts and to each student racial and ethnic 

subgroup required by statute within those 

jurisdictions. All ELs must be included in 

statewide assessments and must be provided 

with accommodations or alternate assessments, 

as appropriate. 

In September 2006, the U.S. Department of 

Education amended the regulations governing 

the Title I program to provide more flexibility on 

EL testing requirements. Initially, all students 

were required to participate in their state’s 

academic assessment system once they had 

enrolled in school, but the 2006 amendment to 

the Title I regulations stated that a recently 

arrived EL (i.e., an EL who has attended schools 

in the United States for less than 12 months28) 

may be exempt from one—and only one—

administration of the state’s English 

reading/language arts assessment (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2007). A newly arrived 

student still is required to take the state’s ELP 

assessment, however, as well as the state’s 

mathematics and science assessments even 

though the state may exclude the scores of 

recently arrived EL students on the state 

mathematics assessment for one cycle of AYP 

determinations (U.S. Department of Education, 

2007). (The required state science assessments 

are not part of AYP determinations and were 

not included in this amendment.) 

While states are making progress in 

implementing assessment requirements for ELs, 

all six state Title III directors interviewed for this 

brief raised challenges for assessing ELs for ESEA

accountability. One such issue was the difficulty 

of using standardized tests for a very diverse 

population—one that can overlap with other 

subgroups, such as students with disabilities. 

According to one Title III director, “The grade 

level and subject area assessments do not 

necessarily describe well the progress [EL] 

students have made. Standardized tests are 

problematic, especially for [EL] children also 

identified as special education. It is not the fault 

of students, but the fault of assessments—there 

isn’t one that is appropriate and the [U.S. 

Department of Education] has not provided 

guidelines or recommendations on how to assess 

[EL] students who are also identified for special 

education.” 

Another Title III director suggested the need for 

more flexibility when testing ELs, particularly as 

more content area assessment requirements are 

added. “Currently, there is some flexibility 
12 

regarding the testing of [EL] students on English 

language arts, but it would be helpful to have 

this flexibility expanded now that additional 

content areas are being tested, such as 

science, etc.” 

Despite the obstacles posed by the current 

measures used in academic accountability for 

ELs, both Title III directors and EL experts noted 

that the Title III provisions emphasizing both 

English language 

acquisition and 

academic 

excellence have 

been beneficial. In 

the words of 

one director, 

“We’ve learned 

the importance of 

including all 

students in 

assessments 

because [ELs] were 

excluded [from 

the academic 

content area tests] 

prior to NCLB

[Title I and Title 

III]. Now we have 

data showing how 

these students are 

doing, including 

baseline data and 

how students are progressing. The requirements 

help bring [EL] students to the forefront.” 

How does Title III accountability 

work? 

States must report the progress of their ELs in 

learning English, as defined by the state’s ELP 

standards and measured by the state’s ELP 

assessment. Progress is to be reported relative to 

the state’s AMAOs,29 which include three 

criteria: 

♦ Annual increases in the number or 

percentage of students making progress in 

learning English (AMAO 1) 

♦ Annual increases in the number or 

percentage of students attaining English 

proficiency (AMAO 2) 

♦ Making adequate yearly progress (AYP)

for limited English proficient children as 

described in Title I, Section 1111(b)(2)(B), of 

ESEA (AMAO 3) 

Through the AMAOs, states hold districts 

receiving Title III funds accountable for 

improving the levels of 

English proficiency and 

academic performance 

of their EL students. If 

a state determines that 

an applicable district 

has not met its AMAOs 

for 2 consecutive years, 

the district must 

develop an 

improvement plan 

with support from the 

state. If the district has 

not met AMAOs for 4 

consecutive years, the 

district then is required 

to modify its 

curriculum, program, 

and method of 

instruction, or the 

state must assess 

whether the district 

will receive additional 

funds. Additionally, 

the district is required 

to replace educational personnel relevant to not 

meeting AMAOs. Parents of ELs who are being 

served by Title III or who are eligible for Title III 

services must be notified of a district’s AMAO 

status if a district has missed any AMAO for 1 or 

more years. 

“Current AMAOs 

are messy but 

what’s good is 

that states are 

wrestling with 

meaningful 

issues and 

having to make 

policy decisions. 

They have 

moved the field 

in the right 

direction.” 

—EL expert 

“We’ve learned 

the importance 

of including all 

students in 

assessments 

because [ELs] 

were excluded 

[from the 

academic 

content area 

tests] prior to 

NCLB [Title I 

and Title III].” 

—State Title 

III director
13 

How did states develop AMAO 

targets? 

Since the inception of Title III, states have 

struggled to set valid AMAO targets, in large 

part because of the challenges they faced in 

establishing two prerequisite foundations: ELP 

standards linked to state academic content 

standards, and valid and reliable ELP assessments 

designed to measure progress in students’ 

acquisition of English. Prior to Title III most states 

were using ELP assessments that had been 

designed to place students into appropriate 

classes rather than to measure growth in 

language acquisition, as now required by the 

law. Indeed, some states had no ELP assessment 

at all and had to adopt an interim test to assess 

ELs annually while they worked to develop one 

that was aligned with Title III requirements. As a 

result, even though many states had such 

assessments in place in 2004–05 (19 of the 

50 states and the District of Columbia) or were 

planning to have them in place in 2005–06 

(26 states and the District of Columbia), most 

Title III directors (44 out of 51) indicated in fall 

2004 that their AMAOs would change as they 

received new test data, created new baselines, 

and accumulated sufficient information to set 

reasonable expectations for growth. 

One state Title III director interviewed for this 

brief described the difficulty in developing initial 

AMAOs: “When AMAOs first hit, it was a stab in 

the dark because nobody had any experience 

with AMAOs. We didn’t know what was 

reasonable or unreasonable to require of 

districts, or how high the standard should be set. 

We didn’t know how fast students would move 

through the various levels of English proficiency 

in our state, especially given the now somewhat 

dated and minimal research that had been done 

on the number of years it took students to reach 

full proficiency in a second language.” Another 

state Title III director called her state’s initial 

AMAOs “a best effort at the time,” given the 

lack of data. 

By the winter of 2006–07, only 

12 state directors reported that their 

states had finalized their AMAO targets. 

Over half of states and the District of 

Columbia were in the process of 

revising their AMAOs at that time, and 

a full 37 states anticipated amending 

them at some point in the future.30

In developing and revising their AMAOs, state 

directors reviewed several years of assessment 

data to determine how much progress an EL can 

be expected to make in a year’s time. Of the six 

state Title III directors interviewed in spring 2009, 

those in California and New York felt that they 

were among the few states with valid ELP 

assessments in place when Title III began and, 

therefore, were in a better position than most 

other states to set AMAOs. Exhibit 5 summarizes 

the AMAOs for California in 2007–08, which 

were based on empirical analyses of 

performance of students and districts on the 

California English Language Development 

Test (CELDT). 

Having an ELP assessment in place did not solve 

all the challenges, however. Guidelines for 

setting the actual targets were confusing to 

many states at the beginning. For example, three 

of the six states interviewed admitted being 

originally under the mistaken impression that 

AMAO targets had to be based on the goal of all 

ELs reaching English proficiency by 2013–14 (just 

like AYP targets which were being developed for 

Title I during the same time frame). Data 

collection and scoring problems with the new 

ELP assessments also created problems for some 

states, including Indiana, which had to base 

AMAO accountability determinations solely on 

AMAO 3 (AYP) for 2005–06. Finally, changes in a 

state’s ELP assessment may call into question 

AMAO targets based on a prior assessment. 

North Carolina is one of the most recent states to 

change ELP assessments, moving to the WIDA 

Consortium and administering the Assessing 

Comprehension and Communication in English 
14 

Exhibit 5: Example of AMAO Definitions and Targets, California, 2007–08 

AMAO 1: Percentage of ELs Making Annual Progress in Learning English 

There are three ways for ELs to meet the annual growth target on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) 

depending upon their level on the prior year CELDT. ELs at the Beginning, Early Intermediate, and Intermediate levels are expected to 

gain one performance level. ELs at the Early Advanced or Advanced level who are not yet English proficient are expected to achieve 

the English proficient level on the CELDT. ELs at the English proficient level are expected to maintain that level. (See AMAO 2 below 

for definition of English proficiency.) 

Percentage meeting AMAO 1 = Number in cohort meeting annual growth target 

 Number with required prior CELDT scores 

2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

51.0% 51.5% 52.0% 48.7% 50.1% 51.6% 53.1% 54.6% 56.0% 57.5% 59.0% 

AMAO 2: Percentage of ELs Attaining English Proficiency on CELDT 

AMAO 2 measures the percent of ELs in a defined cohort at a given point in time, who have attained the English proficient level on 

the CELDT. A student is defined as English proficient on the CELDT if both of the following criteria are met: (1) Overall performance 

level of Early Advanced or Advanced AND (2) Each domain performance level at the Intermediate level or above. 

Percentage meeting AMAO 2 = Number in cohort attaining English proficient level 

 Number of annual CELDT takers in the cohort 

2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

30% 30.7% 31.4% 27.2% 28.9% 30.6% 32.2% 33.9% 35.6% 37.3% 39% 

AMAO 3: Percentage of LEAs or Consortia Meeting AYP Requirements for the EL Subgroup 

In order to meet AMAO 3, the LEA or consortia must meet the 2008 AYP participation rate and percentage proficient targets in 

reading/language arts and mathematics for the EL subgroup. 

Type of LEA 

2008 Targets for the EL Subgroup 

Participation Rate 

Reading/Language Arts and 

Mathematics 

Percent Proficient 

Reading/Language Arts 

Percent Proficient 

Mathematics 

Unified districts, county offices of education, 

high school districts (with grades 2–8 and 9–12) 95.0% 34.0% 34.6% 

Elementary districts, charter elementary and 

middle schools 95.0% 35.2% 37.0% 

High school districts, charter high schools 

(with grades 9–12) 95.0% 33.4% 32.2% 

Title III consortia 95.0% 34.0% 34.6% 

Source: 2007–08 Title III Accountability Report Information Guide (California Department of Education, 2008). 
15 

State-to-State for English Language Learners 

(ACCESS for ELLs) for the first time in 2008–09. 

Even though North Carolina officials will be 

looking at targets used by other states in the 

WIDA Consortium, they will be waiting for a few 

years of test data before revising their own 

AMAO targets again. (See companion evaluation 

brief Title III Accountability: Behind the Numbers

for more information on state AMAOs.) 

What happens when districts 

miss their AMAO targets? 

In the 2006–07 school year, 30 states 

were applying accountability actions to 

districts that had not met their AMAO 

targets for consecutive years. However, 

due to delays in the development of 

ELP standards, assessments, and 

AMAOs, some states refrained from 

imposing consequences. 

Due to the delay in the implementation of ELP 

standards, ELP assessments, and AMAOs, as well 

as the questionable validity of the original 

AMAOs developed from inappropriate and 

nonaligned assessments, states struggled to 

determine the best way to hold Title III districts 

accountable for the progress of their EL students. 

In the SSI-NCLB interviews conducted during fall 

2006, 19 state Title III directors reported that 

they were not holding districts accountable for 

missing AMAO targets.31 However, these same 

directors indicated their intent to 

implement accountability measures once they 

had accurate data. 

Lack of awareness of the requirements was not 

the reason states were not implementing 

accountability provisions. In fall 2006, all state 

directors were aware of the consequences 

associated with missing AMAOs. Every year a 

Title III district misses its AMAO targets, the 

district must notify parents of Title III students. In 

addition, if the district misses its AMAOs for 

2 consecutive years, the state must require a 

district improvement plan and provide technical 

assistance and professional development. 

Similarly, state directors indicated that if districts 

did not meet their AMAOs for 4 consecutive 

years, the state was to require the district to 

modify its curriculum, program, and method of 

instruction, or assess whether the district will 

receive additional funds and require the 

replacement of educational personnel relevant 

to not meeting AMAOs. (See companion brief 

Title III Accountability and District Improvement 

Efforts: A Closer Look for a discussion of the 

actions actually underway in sampled districts 

that had missed their AMAO targets for 

multiple years.) 

To find out whether implementation of 

accountability actions has changed since 

2006–07, the study team interviewed Title 

III directors in six states. The evidence is 

inconclusive but suggestive. Three of the 

six states interviewed for this brief had 

previously reported (fall 2006) that they were 

not yet applying any consequences for districts 

missing AMAOs for 2 or more years; by the time 

of the 2009 interviews, however, five of the 

six states had had AMAOs in place long enough 

to identify districts missing them for at least 

2 years. All five of these states reported that they 

require the following specific actions for districts 

missing AMAOs for 2 consecutive years:32

♦ Development and submission of an 

improvement plan (which often has to 

include results of data analysis and 

descriptions of how the elements in the plan 

are keyed to address the areas of weakness 

as identified by the data); and 

♦ Parental notification of AMAO status 

(required every year the district misses 

AMAOs). 

States varied in their responses to questions 

about requirements or consequences for districts 

missing AMAOs for 4 or more consecutive years, 

largely because not all states have districts in this 
16 

situation. (In the six-state sample, Arkansas, 

Montana, and Indiana did not have districts in 

this category.) North Carolina reported that the 

requirements or consequences for districts 

missing AMAOs for 4 consecutive years do not 

differ from consequences for those missing them 

for 2 consecutive years. New York and California 

require districts that miss AMAOs for 

4 consecutive years to write a corrective action 

plan that includes modifications to their 

curriculum or program of instruction and 

possible changes in staff. 

States varied in their approach to 

accountability for districts participating 

in consortia for Title III funding. 

States use district consortia in Title III to enhance 

EL services in districts that would not otherwise 

be eligible to receive funding. The Notice of 

Final Interpretations that the U.S. Department of 

Education released in October 2008 allowed 

states to treat consortia of multiple districts as a 

single entity or separate entities for the purpose 

of calculating each of the three AMAOs (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2008). Of the six state 

Title III directors interviewed for this brief in 

spring 2009, four indicated that their state 

(California, Indiana, New York, and North 

Carolina) based its consortia AMAO 

determinations on the performance of the 

consortia as a whole, thus awarding all districts 

within a consortium the same AMAO status 

regardless of their individual status. In contrast, 

Montana reported that it determines AMAO 

status for each consortium member 

independently, while the final state in the 

sample, Arkansas, does not fund any 

Title III consortia. 

What lessons have emerged 

from states’ implementation of 

Title III? 

Accountability for ensuring student progress in 

learning English and attaining content area 

proficiency was a new element in the 

2001 reauthorization of ESEA, and creating 

the requisite accountability systems has been a 

learning experience for most states. Based on 

prior Title III evaluations and on interviews 

conducted especially for this brief, the study 

team identified five key lessons from states’ 

implementation of Title III. Several of these may 

have implications for the reauthorization of 

ESEA in the near future. 

1. Including ELs in the accountability 

system helps to focus attention on this 

growing and historically underserved 

population. 

The six state and nine district Title III directors 

interviewed in spring 2009 noted how Title 

III had brought attention to performance gaps 

and had generated interventions to better meet 

the needs of ELs. All of the respondents 

indicated that the accountability associated with 

Title III has heightened awareness around the 

needs of this population of students, and has 

resulted in more resources aimed at supporting 

better instructional services for English Learners. 

Additionally, respondents indicated that Title 

III has helped to strengthen the emphasis on 

ensuring ELs’ academic progress in addition to 

language acquisition. One official noted, “Since 

NCLB [Title III] started, it has made principals 
17 

and superintendents pay attention to their [EL] 

students. . . . [EL 

students] are part 

of the 

accountability 

system [of AYP 

and AMAOs]. 

As such, 

[principals and 

superintendents] 

are providing 

more support and 

services to 

this population.” 

However, 

respondents—

both Title III 

administrators 

and national EL 

experts—also 

pointed to several 

challenges in the 

approach to EL 

accountability: 

♦ EL 

definition:

Influxes of recent 

immigrants 

combined with 

redesignation 

policies result in a 

constantly 

changing EL 

subgroup, as 

proficient 

students are 

systematically 

removed and less 

proficient 

students enter. 

Federal guidelines 

that allow schools 

and districts to 

continue to count students as part of the EL 

subgroup for up to 2 years after 

redesignation does not completely mitigate 

the systematic underestimation of progress 

for language minority students 

under Title III. One recommended change 

suggested by several respondents would be 

to count any student who was ever EL as 

part of the EL subgroup indefinitely for 

accountability purposes. In this way, 

measures of progress could better capture 

school and system success with this dynamic 

group of students. 

♦ Proficiency goal: Closely tied to the issue 

of subgroup definition is the logically 

unreachable goal of 100 percent of the EL 

subgroup reaching proficiency in reading 

and mathematics, whether the target year 

for that goal is 2014 or sometime much 

farther in the future. All six of the EL experts 

as well as six district and three state Title III 

directors interviewed in spring 2009 pointed 

out that because the EL subgroup is 

currently defined in large part by its 

members’ lack of English proficiency—which 

is correlated with lower performance on 

academic tests administered in English—and 

because the subgroup is constantly being 

replenished with new immigrants still 

learning the language, “The expectation 

that [ELs] will eventually reach 100 percent 

academic proficiency by a particular year [as 

in AMAO 3 (AYP)] needs to be revised” 

(Title III director). 

♦ Double counting AYP: All of the six state 

Title III directors interviewed in 2009 

expressed concern about including the 

third AMAO (AYP) for Title III accountability. 

As one respondent stated, “AMAO 3 is a 

challenge. Holding districts accountable for 

the same measure twice is an issue. Districts 

missing AYP are identified under Title I and 

Title III, and districts must adhere to two 

different sets of requirements for missing 

these targets.” These different requirements 

include different time lines for parent 

notification, and additional (and possibly 

“If we had better 

assessments in 

math and 

science where 

language didn’t 

get in the way of 

demonstrating 

what you know 

and can do, it 

would be 

possible to 

accurately 

measure 

attainment in 

those subject 

areas. The 

validity of 

content tests is 

a major issue 

not adequately 

addressed for 

[ELs] in the 

beginner to 

intermediate 

range of the 

language 

acquisition 

continuum.” 

—EL expert, 

Wisconsin 
18 

redundant or conflicting) planning, technical 

assistance, or consequences, such as 

programmatic changes or replacement of 

personnel. Not all respondents agreed that 

the inclusion of academic content goals in 

Title III accountability was a problem. As 

one national expert put it, “From the very 

beginning of federal involvement with [EL] 

students in both Congress and the courts, 

there has been the recognition that the 

students have dual needs in English 

proficiency development and in academic 

development. Title III accountability 

recognizes this explicitly through the 

different AMAOs. It is the responsibility 

of the [federal] administration to affirm 

and support this dual focus, but it is up to 

the states and districts to use this duality 

to make program improvements for 

the students." 

♦ Standardized tests: Standardized tests may 

not accurately reflect EL learning if language 

and content knowledge are conflated—for 

example, if mathematics test items are 

language dependent. In addition, several 

state Title III directors mentioned that 

standardized assessments (even with 

accommodations) are not always adequate 

to measure proficiency in a diverse 

population, particularly for recent 

immigrants, students with no formal 

schooling, and ELs with disabilities. 

2. Addressing both language and content 

learning is a more comprehensive 

approach to serving ELs but requires 

coordination between Title I and Title III 

programs. 

While two of the six state respondents reported 

that coordination between Title I and Title 

III had increased, two other states noted the 

limitations of the interaction between the 

two programs. One state Title III director 

interviewed as part of the spring 2009 sample 

lamented the disconnect between Title I and 

Title III and the relative lack of importance Title 

III has when compared to Title I: “In terms of 

districts seeing consequences of AMAOs, we still 

have a long ways to go. People don’t take it as 

seriously as AYP. Districts still see a big 

disconnect between Title I and Title III—they 

seem to be different funding sources for 

different populations. Some districts separate 

funding by population: Title III for [ELs] and Title 

I is not for [ELs].” As more districts repeatedly 

miss AMAOs, however, he noted that Title III 

accountability is 

becoming more 

salient. 

The presence or 

absence of 

coordination between 

Title I and Title III has 

implications for 

saliency, sending 

signals to teachers, 

district officials, and 

even parents about 

who gets served and 

which kinds of 

accountability are 

important. Poor 

coordination can 

create perceptions 

which speak to the 

extent to which ELs in 

non-Title III schools are 

having their needs 

adequately met. 

Another implication is that since AMAO 3 (AYP) 

is generally the most challenging for districts to 

meet, districts and states have to pay particular 

attention to how the language needs of ELs are 

being met in core content instruction. All six of 

the national experts interviewed for this brief 

emphasized this need. One in particular stressed 

that putting students in meaningful contexts in 

core content areas was the best way not only for 

students to learn the content but also to acquire 

the language. All experts argued for more rather 

“There is a silo 

problem. Title I 

and Title III are 

parallel 

universes, but 

they are coming 

together; [ELs] 

now count in 

Title I, so no one 

can say ‘those 

are Title III 

kids.’” 

—EL expert 
19 

than less attention to core content for ELs, 

including in Title III. 

3. The use of shared ELP standards across 

such a large number of states 

demonstrates that states can agree on 

common standards and assessments. 

This finding may have implications for current 

efforts to develop common standards across 

states in core content areas. Of course, the 

implementation of common ELP standards may 

have been facilitated by the lack of such 

standards in most states prior to Title III. By 

contrast, state standards in content areas have a 

much longer foundation and deeper 

implementation in individual states, so 

negotiation for commonality across states in 

these domains may be more difficult. 

4. Recognizing and responding adequately 

to the diversity of the EL population is 

challenging in terms of instructional 

programming and accountability. 

While Spanish is the predominant native 

language of the EL population, a large number 

of other languages also are spoken, some of 

which can be found strongly represented in 

districts or in specific schools within districts. In 

addition to language, diversity in the EL 

population also is found in the areas of 

education background, immigrant status, and 

ethnic background. Title III accountability 

extends only to the district level and therefore 

may not be able to detect challenges and 

successes in the development of English 

language proficiency at the school level. 

Monitoring data on EL student outcomes can 

help alert schools and districts to the 

effectiveness of their programs for their students 

as well as for differing groups within the larger 

EL population. That monitoring isn’t required at 

the school level and only for the population as a 

whole means that important information for 

improving educational and language programs 

for this diverse population is lost. It also does not 

allow parents and other stakeholders to see 

which students are being adequately served and 

which are not. 

5. State respondents noted both the value 

of additional resources to implement 

language instructional programs and 

the woeful inadequacy of funding 

levels in Title III to meet the need of 

districts and states. 

Though the topic of funding was not specifically 

broached by any interview question, four of the 

six state Title III directors interviewed for this 

brief identified inadequate resources as a 

particular challenge, in having to spread the 

money too thin for states with rural populations 

and in providing support to districts that miss 

AMAOs as those numbers grow in each state 

from year to year. One state Title III director 

illustrated how “small” Title III funds given to 

her state are in relation to the funds districts 

receive from other funding sources. She reported 

that her state only receives a total of 

$500,000 for Title III, $150,000 of which is for 

state administration and support for the ELP 

assessment. As a result, $350,000 is left over for 

district subgrants. As explained, “Particularly for 

those districts in a consortium, the Title III money 

is very diluted.” Some consortia receive 

$10,000 to support a total of eight member 

districts. To further illustrate her concern over 

the amount of money available for Title III, the 

director contrasted Title III funds with the funds 

districts may receive from other sources. For 

example, she reported that in contrast to the 

$10,000 some consortia of districts receive for 

Title III, other districts receive up to 

$300,000 each in federal grants supporting 

Indian education. Extant data collected at the 

national level show that for FY 2008, 

approximately $650 million went to states 

through formula state grants, and state Title 

III grants ranged from $500,000 to 

approximately $165 million. 
20 

Title III typically provides a supplement of 

approximately $100 per EL served. (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2009).33

Ultimately, the issues associated with ensuring 

the academic and linguistic success of the EL 

population will continue to be discussed and 

debated at the federal, state, district, and local 

levels. This brief serves as a small part of the 

dialogue to determine how best to meet the 

needs of this unique and diverse student 

population. 

National Evaluation of Title III Implementation 

This brief and its two companion briefs, Title III Accountability : Behind the Numbers 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 III 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 relationship between student progress in English language proficiency and success in academic content areas; 

• Methods used by all states to define and redesignate ELs; 

• Accountability actions provided to districts that miss AMAO targets for 2 and/or 4 years; 

• The use of district consortia nationwide; and 

• Coordination between Title I and Title III as well as Title III state support infrastructure. 

Acknowledgments 

The members of the study team wish to thank all individuals who contributed their time and efforts throughout data 

collection and drafting the brief. Specifically, we would like to express our appreciation to the state and district Title III 

officials who took time out of their busy schedules to speak with us; to AIR staff and consultants, including Bea Birman, 

Andrea Boyle, Kenji Hakuta, Courtney Tanenbaum, and James Taylor for their thoughtful suggestions, guidance, and 

contributions; and to the following reviewers at the U.S. Department of Education: Supreet Anand, Millie Bentley-Memon, 

Tom Corwin, Susan Craig, Liz Eisner, Britt Jung, Daphne Kaplan, Isabel Oregon, Ron Petracca, Jose Rico, Tracy Rimdzius, 

Phil Rosenfelt, and Richard Smith. The contributions of these individuals were essential for the production of this brief. 
21 

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. ESEA uses 

the term limited English proficient for such students; 

however, it has since become more common to use 

English Learner. 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

 For simplicity, the term “reading/language arts” is 

used throughout this report to refer to the set of 

subjects that may be variously known as reading, 

English, or language arts. 

3

 This is the first in a series of three evaluation briefs 

on Title III. The second, Title III Accountability: Behind 

the Numbers, provides the most recent data available 

on the school-age EL population across the country and 

information on accountability based on Title III annual 

measureable achievement objectives. The third brief, 

Title III Accountability and District Improvement 

Efforts: A Closer Look, explores how districts that have 

missed their Title III accountability targets are working 

to improve outcomes for ELs, including both the 

supports they receive from their states and the 

improvement strategies and activities they implement 

locally. Taken together, the three briefs summarize 

data on Title III implementation to date so as to inform 

dialogue and decision making in the U.S. Department 

of Education and among other federal and state 

officials with a stake in EL policy. 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. 

4

 The data on the K–12 EL population in the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia are derived from the 

2007–08 Consolidated Performance Reports submitted 

by states, and have not been validated by the U.S. 

Department of Education. This figure does not include 

Puerto Rico because most of the Puerto Rican student 

population is made up of native Spanish speakers. In 

Puerto Rico, Title III primarily targets students with 

limited Spanish proficiency. Even though Title III in 

Puerto Rico differs significantly from Title III in the 

other 50 states and the District of Columbia, the basic 

ESEA requirements for non-native-language-speaking 

students are the same, so Puerto Rico is included in this 

report’s discussion of the implementation of the 

Title III program. 

5

 While this section provides background information 

about ELs in U.S. schools more generally, the section 

focuses primarily on ELs served by Title III; that is, ELs 

enrolled in districts that receive Title III funds. 

6

 The data on the number of EL students enrolled in 

districts receiving Title III funds and the overall number 

of EL students in California are derived from the 

2007–08 Consolidated State Performance Reports. 

Notes Spacemaker 

7

 The NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB studies were not 

published reports, but studies used to inform 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). 

8

 Here the study team provides only the broad outline 

of these patterns. For more detail, see the companion 

brief Title III Accountability: Behind the Numbers. 

9

 Based on publicly available data reports retrieved 

from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us on August 25, 2009. 

The exact count of languages by school is not available 

as the reports identify only the five most prevalent 

languages and then subsume the remaining students in 

the “other” category. A quick review of the data, 

however, revealed many schools with 2 to 5 percent of 

the total enrollment categorized as “other.” The study 

team assumes that this category includes at least 

several languages because of the comparatively smaller 

proportions of enrollment with identified predominant 

languages (the top five in enrollment). 

10 Title I and Title III define the low-income or 

“economically disadvantaged” subgroup as children 

with family incomes under 185 percent of the federal 

poverty line, who are eligible for free and reducedprice school lunches. In 2000, this eligibility threshold 

equaled about $31,500 for a family of four (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 2005). 

11 The National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 

Programs defines this as a person or language 

community that is not from the dominant language 

group. In the United States, a language-minority child 

may be bilingual, limited-English proficient, or English 

monolingual (NCELA, 2008b). 

12 Competitive grants require entities that meet 

specified criteria to compete for funding. By contrast, 

formula grants award funds to entities that meet the 

specified criteria according to a funding formula. 

13 Section 3114 of Title III prohibits states from 

providing subgrants to districts that would amount to 

less than $10,000; the use of consortia allows the state 

to serve identified ELs in these jurisdictions. 

14 In the six-state sample, Arkansas does not use 

district consortia for Title III funding; by contrast, six of 

Montana’s 12 Title III subgrantees are district consortia. 

15 States also must establish standards and aligned 

assessments in science, but these are not included in 

AYP targets. 

16 States may establish a minimum number of students 

required for determining subgroup accountability. 

17 As noted above, the terminology used in the law is 

limited English proficient. For reasons states earlier, the 

study team uses EL throughout the brief. 

18 American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

19 For this brief, the study team interviewed six experts 

in the field of EL education. 
22 

20 The topic of using caution when drawing 

comparisons across jurisdictions is discussed further in 

the second brief, Title III Accountability: Behind the 

Numbers. 

21 Comprehension, as exhibited through reading and 

listening, must be considered when states develop 

their English language proficiency standards (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2003). 

22 A July 1, 2005, letter from the associate assistant 

deputy secretary for the Office of English Language 

Acquisition extended the deadline for states to fully 

implement their new integrated systems of ELP 

standards, aligned assessments, and accountability that 

Title III requires. The letter states, “The Department has 

determined that spring 2006 is a reasonable time 

frame to expect States to fully establish and implement 

these new systems. Therefore, States are expected to 

begin full administration of ELP assessments aligned 

with State ELP standards in grades K–12 by spring 

2006” (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). 

23 This number has since increased to 21 states and the 

District of Columbia. These are states that have 

adopted the World Class Instructional Design and 

Assessment (WIDA) Consortium standards and the 

aligned ACCESS for ELLs assessment. The WIDA 

Consortium requires that states electing to use the 

ACCESS for ELLs assessment also adopt the common 

standards on which the assessment is based. 

24 These eight states share the same assessment, the 

English Language Development Assessment (ELDA), 

but have their own sets of ELP standards rather than a 

common set. 

25 Comprehension need not be assessed separately but 

may be reported as a composite of student scores in 

listening and reading. 

26 Since these interviews were conducted, however, 

several states have adopted the ACCESS for ELLs 

assessment developed by the WIDA Consortium (see 

endnote 23). 

27 These data are derived from item 1.6.2 in the 

2005–06 Consolidated State Performance Report. States 

were required only to indicate the presence or absence 

of an “independent alignment study” or “other 

alignment study” without providing any details about 

the study(ies). Therefore, no additional information 

about these alignment studies can be provided in this 

brief. It also should be noted that the federal 

government provided no specific guidance or oversight 

regarding the nature or quality of these 

alignment studies. 

28 The term does not have to be 12 consecutive months 

but can be 12 months total. 

29 The term annual measurable achievement objective

refers to performance targets set specifically for ELs 

served through Title III. This should not be confused 

with AMOs (annual measurable objectives), which are 

AYP targets for all students. 

30 Source: State and Local Implementation of the No 

Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX—Accountability 

Under NCLB: Final Report (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2010). 

31 Where the EL subgroup was sufficiently large, 

however, Title I accountability for the EL subgroup still 

applied during this time. 

32 Montana is excluded from this group because it did 

not make AMAO determinations until 2008–09. 

Therefore, no districts in Montana have missed AMAOs 

for 2 or 4 consecutive years. 

33 These data derive from Chambers, J. G., Lam, I., 

Mahitivanichcha, K., Esra, P., & Shambaugh, L. (2009). 

State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left 

Behind Act: Targeting and Uses of Federal Education 

Funds. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. 

Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/

rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-targeting/nclb-targeting.pdf. 

The report states, “Title III distributed $681 million in 

2004–05 to 41 percent of the districts enrolling 87 

percent of the nation’s LEP students” (p. xix) and that 

“Title III funding per LEP student was $108 and $106 in 

the highest and lowest-poverty districts, respectively” 

(p.22). 
23 

References 

California Department of Education. (2008, 

September). 2007-08 Title III accountability report 

information guide. Sacramento, CA: Office of Policy 

and Evaluation Division. Retrieved August 20, 2009, 

from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3/documents

/infoguide0708.pdf

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

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

America's schools: Immigration and the No Child 

Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban 

Institute. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from 

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

311230_new_demography.pdf

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

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

high and low LEP schools. Washington, DC: The 

Urban Institute. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from 

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

411231_whos_left_behind.pdf

National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 

Programs (NCELA). (2002, December). What 

languages do ELLs speak? Retrieved June 12, 2009, 

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

05toplangs.html

National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 

Programs (NCELA). (2006). The growing numbers of 

limited English proficient students. Retrieved 

August 19, 2009, from 

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

uploads/4/GrowingLEP_0506.pdf

National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 

Programs (NCELA). (2008a). How has the ELL 

population changed in recent years? Retrieved July 

9, 2009, from http://ncela.edstudies.net/

expert/faq/08leps.html

National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 

Programs (NCELA). (2008b). Glossary. Retrieved July 

9, 2009, from http://ncela.edstudies.net/

expert/glossary.html

National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 

Programs (NCELA). (2008c). History. Retrieved July 9, 

2009, from http://ncela.edstudies.net/

policy/1_history.htm

Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., Fix, M., & Clewell, B. C. (2000). 

Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students 

in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, DC: The 

Urban Institute. 

References Spacemaker 

U.S. Department of Education. Office of English 

Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and 

Academic Achievement for Limited English 

Proficient Students. (2005, July 1). Letter to Title 

III state directors. Washington, DC: Author. 

Retrieved July 9, 2009, from 

http://wvconnections.k12.wv.us/

documents/TimelineforELPAssessment.doc 

U.S. Department of Education. (2007, May). Assessment 

and accountability for recently arrived and former 

limited English proficient (LEP) students: 

Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. 

Retrieved July 9, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/

policy/elsec/guid/lepguidance.doc 

U.S. Department of Education. (2008, October 17). Title 

III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 (ESEA) as amended by the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Notice of final 

interpretations. Federal Register, 73(202), 

61828–61844. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/

E8-24679.pdf

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

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service. (2009). State and local 

implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: 

Targeting and uses of federal education funds. By, 

the American Institutes for Research. Washington, 

DC.: Author. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/

nclb-targeting/nclb-targeting.pdf

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., and Carlson-Le Floch, K. Washington, DC.: 

Author. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). 

2000 HHS Poverty Guidelines. Updated March 2005. 

Retrieved April 29, 2010 from http://aspe.hhs.gov/

poverty/00poverty.htm. 

Wolf, M.K., Kao, J.C., Griffin, N., Herman, J.L., 

Bachman, P.L., Chang, S.M., & Farnsworth, To. 

(2008) Issues in assessing English language learners: 

English language proficiency measures and 

accommodation uses. Los Angeles: National Center 

for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and 

Student Testing. 

Zehr, M. A. (2009, January 8). Quality counts 2009: 

Portrait of a population: Screening students proves 

to be crucial. Education Week, 28(17), 30, 34.