United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

NO CHILD LEFT 

BEHIND ACT 

Education’s Data 

Improvement Efforts 

Could Strengthen the 

Basis for Distributing 

Title III Funds 

December 2006 

 

GAO-07-140 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

December 2006

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

EDUCATION'S DATA IMPROVEMENT 

EFFORTS COULD STRENGTHEN THE 

BASIS FOR DISTRIBUTING TITLE III 

FUNDS 

Highlights of GAO-07-140, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Title III of the No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001 (NCLBA) designates 

federal funds to support the 

education of students with limited 

English proficiency and provides

for formula-based grants to states. 

This report describes the data the 

Education Department used to 

distribute Title III funds and the 

implications of data measurement 

issues for the two allowable 

sources of data— American 

Community Survey (ACS) and state 

assessment data—for allocating

funds across states. In addition, 

the report describes changes in

federal funding to support these 

students under NCLBA and how 

states and school districts used

these funds as well as Education’s 

Title III oversight and support to

states. To address these 

objectives, GAO reviewed 

documentation on ACS and state 

data, interviewed federal and state 

officials, and collected data from 12

states, 11 districts, and 6 schools. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Education 

provide clear instructions to states 

on how and where to provide data 

specified in NCLBA on the number 

of students with limited English 

proficiency, develop and 

implement a methodology for 

determining which is the more 

accurate of the two allowable

sources of data, and seek authority 

to use statistical methodologies to 

reduce the volatility associated

with ACS data. Education 

generally agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations. 

Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funds, but measurement 

issues with both ACS and state data could result in funding differences. 

Education used ACS data primarily because state data were incomplete. In 

September, Education officials told us they were developing plans to clarify 

instructions for state data submissions to address identified inconsistencies. 

While Education officials expected their efforts to improve the quality of the 

data, they told us that they had not established criteria or a methodology to 

determine the relative accuracy of the two data sources. State data 

represent the number of students with limited English proficiency assessed 

annually for English proficiency, and ACS data are based in part on 

responses to subjective English ability questions from a sample of the 

population. ACS data showed large increases and decreases in numbers of 

these students from 2003 to 2004 in part due to sample size. ACS data and 

state counts of students with limited English proficiency for the 12 study 

states differed (see graph). GAO’s simulation of the distribution of Title III 

funds for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 based on these numbers showed that 

there would be differences in how much funding states would receive. 

Percentage Differences between State-Reported Data (2004-05) and 2004 ACS Data in 12 

Study States

In fiscal year 2006, Congress authorized over $650 million in Title III funding 

for students with limited English proficiency––an increase of over $200

million since fiscal year 2001 under NCLBA. This increase in funding as well 

as the change in how funds are distributed—from a primarily discretionary 

grant program to a formula grant program—contributed to more districts 

receiving federal funding to support students with limited English 

proficiency since the enactment of NCLBA. States and school districts used 

Title III funds to support programs and activities including language 

instruction and professional development. Education provided oversight and 

support to states. Officials from 5 of the 12 study states reported overall 

satisfaction with the support from Education. However, some officials 

indicated that they needed more guidance in certain areas, such as 

developing English language proficiency assessments that meet NCLBA's 

requirements. Education is taking steps to address issues states identified. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-140.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby 

at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Education Used Census’ ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds 

Because State Data Were Incomplete and Data Measurement 

Issues Could Result in Funding Differences across States 11 

Under NCLBA, Federal Funding for Students with Limited English 

Proficiency and Immigrant Children and Youth Has Increased, 

and More School Districts Are Receiving Funds 27 

States and School Districts Used Title III Funds to Support 

Programs for Students with Limited English Proficiency, but 

Some Cited Challenges Recruiting Highly Qualified Staff 31 

Education Provided Oversight and Support to Help States Meet 

Title III Requirements 36 

Conclusions 38

Recommendations 39

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 40 

Appendix I Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language 

Instruction 42 

Appendix II Language Instruction Educational Programs Used by

States in School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 44 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Education 48 

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments 51 

Tables 

Table 1: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Students 

with Limited English Proficiency 14 

Table 2: Volatility in ACS Data 17 

Table 3: Allocation of Title III Funds for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 20 

Page i GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Table 4: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on 

Immigrant Children and Youth 23 

Table 5: Number of States, Including the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds to 

Support Different Types of Language Instruction Programs 32 

Table 6: Number of States, including the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds for 

Various State-Level Activities 34 

Table 7: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language 

Instruction 42

Figures 

Figure 1: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (State 

Data) 15

Figure 2: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (ACS) 16 

Figure 3: Percentage Differences between School Year 2004-05

State-Reported Data and 2004 ACS Data in 12 Study States 22 

Figure 4: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States

Based on a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported 

Data (Fiscal Year 2005) 25 

Figure 5: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States

Based on a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported 

Data (Fiscal Year 2006) 26 

Figure 6: Appropriations for Programs to Support Students with 

Limited English Proficiency Fiscal Years 2001-06 28 

Figure 7: Distribution of Title VII and Title III Funds Provided to 

States in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006 29 

Page ii GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Abbreviations 

ACS American Community Survey 

ESL English as a second language 

ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages 

NCELA National Clearinghouse of English Language Acquisition 

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

December 7, 2006 

The Honorable George Miller 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Select Education 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Lynn Woolsey 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Education Reform 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Raúl Grijalva 

House of Representatives 

An estimated 5 million students with limited English proficiency were 

enrolled in the nation’s public schools in the 2003-04 school year, and this

population has been growing. Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 (NCLBA) designates federal funds to support the education of 

students with limited English proficiency. We addressed how states can 

better measure the progress of these students in our July 2006 report.1

NCLBA, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 

provides for formula-based grants to states, replacing the discretionary 

grants authorized under Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act 

of 1994. In particular, under NCLBA, the Secretary of Education is 

required to base the distribution of funds on the more accurate of two 

allowable sources of data on the population of children and youth with 

limited English proficiency and immigrants: the Bureau of the Census’ 

 1

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

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

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

Page 1 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
(Census) American Community Survey (ACS) data or state-collected data. 

However, questions have been raised about data measurement issues, 

such as what the data are designed to measure and how that measurement 

occurs, that affect the data the Department of Education (Education) can

use to distribute Title III funds. Congress is interested in the implications 

of using each of the two data sources to distribute these funds as well as 

other issues related to serving students with limited English proficiency. In

response to congressional interest we agreed to answer the following 

questions: 1) What data does Education use to distribute Title III funds and 

what are the implications of data measurement issues for the two 

allowable sources of data for allocating funds across states? 2) How have 

the level and distribution of federal funds to support students with limited

English proficiency changed under NCLBA? 3) How do states and school 

districts use Title III funds? 4) How has Education provided oversight and 

support to help states meet Title III requirements? 

In doing our work we used a variety of methodological approaches. To 

address how data measurement issues affect the distribution of Title III 

funds to states and to determine the implications of these issues, we 

reviewed documentation and literature about ACS data, including prior 

GAO reports, and interviewed Census officials knowledgeable about ACS. 

We also analyzed information in 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation 

Reports and Consolidated State Performance Reports for the 2003-04 and

2004-05 school years—the most recent years for which these reports were 

available—for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We

analyzed the data that states reported related to the number of students 

with limited English proficiency and recent immigrant students. We 

selected 12 states and collected data related to students with limited 

English proficiency and those students classified as recent immigrants. To 

assess the reliability of state data, we interviewed knowledgeable state 

officials about data quality control procedures and potential limitations of 

these data and data systems. We also reviewed relevant documents. We 

determined that the data obtained from these states related to students 

with limited English proficiency were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes. The selected states have large or growing populations of these 

students, are geographically diverse, and represent more than 75 percent

of both Title III funding and the population of students with limited 

English proficiency. We visited 6 of the 12 states—Arizona, California, 

Florida, Illinois, Nevada, and Texas—and called officials in the other 6 

states—Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and 

Washington. We simulated the distribution of Title III funds to the 12 

states based on state-reported data and compared the results to the actual

distribution for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years. To address the 

Page 2 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
second and third questions, we used information from the states’ Biennial

Evaluation Reports, including information on the number of subgrantees 

receiving Title III funds in each state and how states used Title III funds. 

We also gathered in-depth information on funding and programs that 

support students with limited English proficiency from the12 study states. 

We reviewed Education documents and interviewed Education officials, 

including officials from the Office of English Language Acquisition, the 

Office of Budget Service, and the National Center for Education Statistics, 

to obtain information about funding distribution and Education’s support 

to states. In addition, we met with officials in 11 school districts and 1 

school in each of these districts to collect in-depth information on how 

funds were used in the 6 states we visited. Finally, to complete the answer 

to the question relevant to Education’s oversight and support, we reviewed 

the guidance Education has issued on Title III and analyzed Education’s 21 

Title III monitoring reports completed as of September 30 and states’ 

responses to these reports as available. We also interviewed state officials 

in our 12 study states. We conducted our work from December 2005 to 

September 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funding across states; 

however, Education has not developed a methodology to determine the 

more accurate of the two allowable data sources, and measurement issues 

in either allowable source could affect the amount of funding each state 

receives. Some states provided incomplete data and others provided 

inconsistent data to Education on the number of students with limited 

English proficiency in the Consolidated State Performance Reports, in 

part, because of unclear instructions. Education officials told us that their 

ongoing reviews of state data and preliminary plans to clarify some report 

instructions should improve these data. Education officials also told us 

they used ACS data primarily because the state data were incomplete. 

However, Education officials told us they have not established criteria or a 

methodology to evaluate the relative accuracy of the two data sources 

once the state data are complete. ACS and state data each measure 

different populations in distinct ways, and it is unclear how well either of

the two data sources captures the population of children with limited 

English proficiency. With respect to state data, differences in how states 

identify which students have limited English proficiency could affect the 

numbers states report to Education and could ultimately affect the 

distribution of Title III funds. ACS data present challenges as well. For 

example, responses to subjective English ability questions on the ACS 

survey showed some inconsistency when Census officials re-interviewed

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
respondents. In addition, the ACS data showed large increases and 

decreases in the numbers of students with limited English proficiency 

from 2003 to 2004. Some of these fluctuations could be due to sampling 

error. Our simulation of the distribution of Title III funds for 12 study 

states for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 using both ACS data and statecollected counts of students with limited English proficiency showed that 

in each year there would be differences in how much funding each of the 

12 study states would receive. 

An increase in funding as well as a change in how funds are distributed 

contributed to more school districts receiving federal funding to support 

students with limited English proficiency since the enactment of NCLBA. 

In fiscal year 2006, Congress authorized and Education provided over $650 

million to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, mostly 

through formula grants for programs that support students with limited 

English proficiency. This authorization represented an increase of more 

than $200 million from fiscal year 2001, the last year Education made 

discretionary grants for similar purposes under Title VII of the Improving 

America’s Schools Act. Under the Title III formula grant program in fiscal 

year 2006, the funds were distributed based primarily on the number of 

students with limited English proficiency. As a result of the change to a 

formula grant, more school districts received funds under Title III than 

under Title VII. For example, in three of our study states (California, 

Texas, and Illinois) more than 1,900 school districts received Title III funds 

in the 2003-04 school year, compared to about 500 school districts 

(including districts with schools that received Title VII grants) that 

received Title VII funding in fiscal year 2001. 

States and school districts reported using Title III funds to support 

programs and activities including language instruction and professional 

development as well as to support activities for immigrant children and 

youth, but some study states and school districts cited challenges in 

recruiting qualified staff. All states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico reported that school districts receiving Title III funds provided a 

variety of language instruction programs. They also reported that school 

districts conducted professional development activities for teachers or 

other personnel, such as workshops on effective teaching strategies for 

students with limited English proficiency. Forty-six states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported that school districts conducted 

activities to support immigrant children and youth, such as providing 

tutorials, mentoring, or parent outreach. Similarly, in the 12 study states 

and 11 school districts we visited in 6 of these states, Title III funds were 

used to support a variety of programs and activities for students with 

Page 4 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
limited English proficiency, such as professional development, tutoring, 

and parent outreach. According to state Biennial Evaluation Reports, the 

majority of states provided professional development to help teachers and 

other staff meet state and local certification and licensing requirements for 

teaching students with limited English proficiency. However, officials in 

some study states identified challenges recruiting qualified staff. 

Specifically, officials in 5 of the 12 study states and 8 school districts we 

visited noted that difficulty hiring qualified teachers or other personnel 

who meet NCLBA requirements presented challenges to implementing 

effective programs. 

Education provided states oversight, such as Title III-monitoring visits, 

and a variety of support, such as providing technical assistance and 

guidance through annual conferences and Web casts, to help states meet 

Title III requirements. Officials from 5 of the 12 study states reported 

general satisfaction with the support Education provided. One area that 

officials from seven of the study states identified as difficult was how to 

address the needs of those students having both limited English 

proficiency and disabilities, such as those with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities. An Education official stated that there is limited 

research on approaches for addressing this group, but Education is 

working with states and experts to explore the appropriate identification,

assessment, placement, and interventions for such students. In addition, 

officials in 5 of the 12 states thought more guidance was needed on 

developing English language proficiency assessments that meet NCLBA’s 

requirements. In our July 2006 report, we recommended that Education 

identify and provide technical support that states need to ensure the 

validity of academic assessments and publish additional guidance on

requirements for assessing English language proficiency, among other 

things. Education agreed with our recommendations and has begun to 

identify the additional technical assistance needs of states and ways to 

provide additional guidance in these areas. 

To address issues related to Title III allocation, we recommended that

Education (1) include clear instructions about how to provide correct and 

complete state data on the number of students with limited English 

proficiency assessed annually for proficiency in English; (2) develop and 

implement a transparent methodology for determining the relative 

accuracy of the two allowable sources of data—ACS or state data on the 

number of students with limited English proficiency assessed annually—

for Title III allocations to states; and (3) seek authority to use statistical 

methodologies to reduce the volatility associated with the ACS data. In

comments, Education generally agreed with our recommendations. 

Page 5 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Since the 1960’s, the federal government has provided resources to 

support the education of students with limited English proficiency. 

Federal funding has supported school districts, colleges and universities, 

and research centers to assist students in attaining English proficiency and 

in meeting academic standards. In addition to federal funding, state and 

local agencies provide significant funding to support the education of 

these students. The evolving educational standards movement and NCLBA 

have reshaped how the federal government views and supports programs 

for elementary and secondary school students whose native language is 

not English. 

Background 

Prior to Title III of NCLBA, federal funding provided under Title VII of the 

Improving America’s Schools Act supported services for students with 

limited English proficiency. Both Title III and Title VII were designed to 

target students with limited English proficiency, including immigrant 

children and youth, supporting these students in attaining English 

proficiency and meeting the same academic content standards all students 

are expected to meet.2

 However, Title III differs from Title VII in terms of 

funding methods and requirements for academic standards and English 

language proficiency standards and assessments. In particular, Title III 

provides for formula-based grants whereas Title VII provided funds 

primarily through discretionary grants. Title III also requires states to have 

English language proficiency standards that are aligned with the state 

academic content standards, in addition to annually assessing the English 

language proficiency of students having limited English proficiency. GAO 

reported on the academic achievement of these students and the validity 

and reliability of assessments used to measure their performance. We 

recommended that Education undertake a variety of activities to help 

states better measure the progress of these students under NCLBA.3

Title VII authorized various discretionary grants to eligible states, school

districts, institutions of higher education, or community-based 

organizations to, among other things, assist with the development of 

instructional programs for students with limited English proficiency. 

Under Title VII, colleges and universities also could apply for grants to 

provide professional development programs on instructional and 

 2

 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002)) and the Improving

America’s Schools Act (Pub. L. No. 103-382 (1994)) amended and reauthorized the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 

3 GAO-06-815. 

Page 6 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
assessment methodologies and strategies as well as resources specific to 

limited English proficient students for teachers and other staff providing 

services to these students. Title VII also required that funds be set aside 

for the establishment and operation of a national clearinghouse for 

information on programs for students with limited English proficiency. In 

addition, Title VII offered a formula grant program to support enhanced 

instructional opportunities in school districts that experienced 

unexpectedly large increases in their immigrant student population. States

with districts that had large numbers or percentages of immigrant students 

were eligible to receive funds under this program. 

Distribution of Title III 

Funds 

In contrast to Title VII, Title III of NCLBA requires Education to allocate 

funds to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico4

 based on a 

formula incorporating the population of children with limited English 

proficiency and the population of immigrant children and youth in each 

state (relative to national counts of these populations). Specifically, funds 

are to be distributed to states as follows 

• 80 percent based on the population of children with limited English 

proficiency, and 

• 20 percent based on the population of recently immigrated children and 

youth (relative to national counts of these populations).5

NCLBA provides that Education is to determine the number of children 

with limited English proficiency and immigrant children and youth using 

the more accurate of two data sources: the number of students with 

limited English proficiency who are assessed under NCLBA for English 

 4

 The total amount of Title III funding allotted to Puerto Rico is not to exceed 0.5 percent of

the total amount allotted to all states in a fiscal year. 

5

 NCLBA defines immigrant children and youth to mean individuals aged 3 to 21 who were

not born in the United States and who have not been attending school in the U.S. for more

than 3 full academic years. Hereinafter the term “recently immigrated children and youth” 

will refer to this population. 

Page 7 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
proficiency,6 or data from ACS, which is based on responses to a series of 

relevant questions.7

Education allocates these funds after making certain reservations. For 

example, each fiscal year Education must reserve 0.5 percent or $5 million, 

whichever is greater, for providing grants to schools and other eligible 

entities that support language instruction educational projects for Native 

American children (including Alaska Native children) with limited English 

proficiency. Also, a reservation of 6.5 percent is made to support activities 

including the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition 

and Language Instruction Educational Programs8

 and to provide grants for 

professional development to improve educational services for children 

with limited English proficiency.9

 Institutions of higher education in 

consortia with school districts or state educational agencies may apply for 

these discretionary grants. 

Once states receive Title III funds from Education, they are allowed to set 

aside up to 5 percent of these funds for certain state-level activities, 

including administration. In addition, Title III requires each state to use up

to 15 percent of its formula grant to award subgrants to its school districts 

with significant increases in school enrollment of immigrant children and 

youth, before distributing the remainder across school districts in 

proportion to the number of students with limited English proficiency. 

 6

 Under section 1111(b)(7) of NCLBA, all students with limited English proficiency are 

required to be assessed annually for English proficiency (across three domains: oral

language, reading, and writing). Since all students with limited English proficiency are to

be assessed, the number of those assessed should be reasonably close to the number of

students identified as having limited English proficiency. 

7

 NCLBA directed Education to base the distribution of funding on Census data or data

submitted by states for the first 2 years after the passage of NCLBA. 

8

 The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction

Educational Programs collects, analyzes, synthesizes, and disseminates information about

language instruction educational programs for children with limited English proficiency. 

(See http://www.ncela.gwu.edu, downloaded Sept. 22, 2006.)

9

 Funding is also reserved for continuation awards to recipients who received multiple year 

grants and fellowships under Title VII for the complete period of the grant or fellowship. 

Page 8 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
School districts are required to use Title III funds to provide scientifically 

based language instruction programs for students with limited English 

proficiency10 and to provide professional development to teachers or other 

personnel.11 School districts may also use Title III funds for other 

purposes, including 

• to develop and implement language instruction programs for such 

students; 

• to upgrade program objectives and instruction strategies, curricula, 

educational software, and assessment procedures for such students; 

• to provide tutorials or intensified instruction for these students; 

• to provide community participation programs, family literacy services, 

and parent outreach for these students and their families; 

• to acquire educational technology or instructional materials; and 

• to provide access to electronic networks for materials, training, and 

communication. 

School districts that receive funds because they have experienced 

substantial increases in immigrant children and youth are to use these 

funds for activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities for 

these students. Such activities may include family literacy programs 

designed to assist parents in becoming active participants in the education 

of their children; services such as tutoring, mentoring, and academic or 

career counseling for these students; support for teacher aides trained 

specifically for working with these students; the acquisition of 

instructional materials or software; and programs designed to introduce 

these students to the educational system. 

An Office of Management and Budget-sponsored interagency committee, 

including Education, exists to determine questions to be included on the 

ACS and decennial census. Education’s National Center for Education 

Statistics represented the department in the determination of the 

School Districts’ Uses of 

Title III Funds 

American Community 

Survey 

 10 Language instruction programs used by districts include both English as a Second

Language (ESL), an approach that typically involves little or no use of the native language, 

and bilingual education, which may use and promote two languages. Appendix I provides 

additional information on different types of ESL and bilingual education programs. 

11 NCLBA states that this professional development should be designed to improve the 

instruction and assessment of students with limited English proficiency and to enhance the

ability of teachers to use curricula assessment measures and instruction strategies for 

these students. It also states that activities should be of sufficient intensity and duration to

have a positive and lasting impact on teacher performance. 

Page 9 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
questions used by Census. The current language questions were developed 

for the 1980 census to obtain information needed about current language 

use and limited English language proficiency as a result of legislation such 

as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Bilingual Education Act, and the Voting

Rights Act. These questions remain in their original form and have not 

been modified since the passage of NCLBA. 

The other data source specified by NCLBA as a potential basis for the 

distribution of Title III funding—the number of students with limited 

English proficiency who are assessed annually for proficiency in English—

would generally come from the states. States report the number of 

students assessed to Education in their Consolidated State Performance 

Reports. States are to report the number of these students served by Title 

III who are assessed annually for proficiency in English in the state 

Biennial Evaluation Reports to Education. 

Education has responsibility for general oversight under Title III of 

NCLBA, including providing guidance and technical assistance, 

monitoring, and reporting information to Congress on students with 

limited English proficiency based on data collected in the Consolidated 

State Performance Reports and Biennial Evaluation Reports. Education 

reviews state plans, which all states have submitted. These plans, as 

required by Title III, outline the process that the state will use in making 

subgrants to eligible entities and provide evidence that districts conduct 

annual assessments for English proficiency that meet the law’s 

requirements, along with other information. By June 2003, Education had 

reviewed and approved all state plans; Education has since reviewed and 

approved many plan amendments submitted by states. 

State Data (Number of 

Students with Limited 

English Proficiency 

Assessed) 

Oversight 

Page 10 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funds across states 

although measurement issues with ACS and state-reported data could 

affect the amount of funding that each state receives. Education has not 

developed a methodology to determine the more accurate of the allowable 

data once state data are complete. The two data sources differ in what 

they measure and how that measurement occurs. These differences 

between the data sources have implications for funding levels—some 

states could receive more funding while others could receive less 

depending on which data source Education uses. 

Education based the distribution of Title III funding across states on 

Census’ ACS data for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. In both years, Education 

used these data to determine the number of children and youth with 

limited English proficiency as well as the number of children and youth 

who were recent immigrants. Prior to fiscal year 2005, Education used 

Census 2000 data for the number of children and youth with limited 

English proficiency and relied on state-reported data for the number of 

recent immigrants.12

Education officials determined that the ACS data were more accurate than

state data—primarily because the state data provided in the Consolidated 

State Performance Reports on the number of students with limited English 

proficiency who were assessed for English proficiency across three 

dimensions (reading, writing, and oral) were incomplete. Education 

officials explained that not all states provided these data for school year 

2004-05, and some provided data that included only partial counts of 

Education Used 

Census’ ACS Data to 

Distribute Title III 

Funds Because State 

Data Were Incomplete 

and Data 

Measurement Issues 

Could Result in 

Funding Differences 

across States 

Education Used ACS Data 

to Distribute Title III 

Funds across States, but 

Has Not Developed a 

Methodology to Determine 

the More Accurate of the 

Allowable Data—State 

Data or ACS Data 

 12 In fiscal year 2004, Education sought and received authority to continue to use Census 

data beyond the 2-year time frame set forth in NCLBA. Education officials told us that the

pilot ACS data available for the fiscal year 2004 distribution of funds were not suitable to 

be used as the basis of Title III-funding distribution due to limitations of the sample size 

used. 

Page 11 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
students.13 For example according to Education, some states, such as 

California and Texas, did not assess all students with limited English 

proficiency.14 Education officials told us that the lack of complete state 

data was, in part, due to the time needed to establish academic standards 

and align English language proficiency assessments to those standards and 

collect the related data.

Education officials also explained that some states provided inconsistent 

data on the number of students with limited English proficiency who were 

assessed for English proficiency in the Consolidated State Performance 

Reports because instructions for providing this information did not 

include definitions of the data to be collected. Similarly, we found that 

these instructions could be interpreted to ask for different data elements. 

For example, it was unclear whether states should provide the number of 

students screened for English proficiency, the number of students who 

were already identified as limited English proficient who were then 

assessed for their proficiency or a combination of the two numbers. 

Further it was not clear whether or not states were to provide an 

unduplicated count—as some states use more than one assessment to 

evaluate a student’s mastery of the various dimensions of English 

proficiency (reading, writing, and oral). Such students may be reported 

more than once. As a result, some states included duplicate counts of 

students, and in other states, these data included other student counts 

(based on screening of new students rather than assessments of already 

identified students as specified in the law). In September 2006, Education

officials told us that they plan to modify the instructions for providing 

these data in the Consolidated State Performance Report for school year 

2006-07 data that is to be submitted in December of 2007. However, the 

officials did not have a copy of a plan or proposed modifications. 

During the time of our engagement, Education was in the process of 

reviewing state data and providing feedback to the states based on both 

school year 2003-04 and 2004-05 Consolidated State Performance Report

 13 Education relied on their contractor’s analysis of the Consolidated State Performance

Report data related to students with limited English proficiency and thus did not have a

state-by-state analysis of the number of states that did not provide data on the number of

students with limited English proficiency who were assessed for English proficiency or

those states that provided partial data for school year 2004-05. 

14 In such cases the number of students identified as having limited English proficiency—

which is the number we use in our analyses in this report—could be greater than the

number of students assessed annually for English proficiency.

Page 12 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
data. Education performed this effort in part to improve the quality of 

state data entered into Education’s national data system. This effort 

included comparing recent data to data provided in previous years and 

incorporating data edits and checks to guide state officials as they entered 

relevant data electronically. Education officials told us that they expect 

this review along with feedback to the states to result in improved data for 

school year 2005-06 and beyond. They also told us that they believe their 

efforts to address state data quality, including clarifying Consolidated 

State Performance Report instructions and reviewing state-provided data, 

will result in improved information on the number of students with limited 

English proficiency who were assessed for English proficiency. 

While Education officials expected that their efforts would improve the 

quality of the data, they told us that they had not established criteria or a 

methodology to determine the relative accuracy of the two data sources. 

Education officials stated that as the state data improve and become 

complete, complex analysis will be needed to determine the relative 

accuracy of these data and the ACS data. 

The Allowable State Data 

and the ACS Data Differ in 

What They Measure and 

How That Measurement 

Occurs 

The two allowable sources of data measure fundamentally different 

populations. The state data specified in NCLBA are to represent those 

students with limited English proficiency who are assessed annually for 

proficiency. In contrast, the ACS data that Education uses to represent 

students with limited English proficiency are based on self-reported 

survey responses to particular questions of a sample of the population. 

Table 1 compares different characteristics of these data, including what 

they measure and how. 

Page 13 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Table 1: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Students with Limited English Proficiency

State data on students with limited English proficiencyb

Feature 

ACS data used to represent the 

number of students with limited

English proficiencya

Number assessed annually for 

English proficiency 

Number identified as limited 

English proficient 

Measures provided Number of persons ages 5 to 21 

who speak a language other than 

English at home and report 

speaking English less than “very 

well”. 

Number of students with limited 

English proficiency in grades K-12 

who are assessed for English

proficiency. 

Number of students identified as 

limited English proficient in grades 

K-12. 

How it is measured Self report (sample of population). 

Collected by Census Bureau.

State developed/approved 

assessments. Collected by state 

and local officials. 

Varies across states, includes a 

Home Language Survey. Collected 

by state and local officials. 

Timing Annual average of monthly sample. Varies; usually in spring. Varies: cumulative count, average, 

one time snapshot. 

Purpose To comply with Voting Rights Act, 

Older Americans Act, and NCLBA 

requirements. 

To provide information to serve the 

needs of the foreign-born and 

those with limited English 

proficiency. 

NCLBA requirement to track the 

progress to proficiency in English 

of identified students. 

NCLBA provision as allowable data 

source for Title III allocation. 

To identify children who need to be 

offered services. 

Education’s role in 

data collection

Work with Census to make sure 

appropriate questions are included.

Can propose new questions, if

necessary. 

Has required states to assess 

students annually. 

Has not yet specifically compiled 

complete information on the 

number of students assessed. 

Has required states to collect and 

report these data. 

Source: Census, Education, and data obtained by Education from ACS. 

a

This column refers to data obtained by Education from ACS, but ACS collects additional data. 

b

Some states may have data available for children prior to kindergarten. 

NCLBA requires that all students with limited English proficiency are 

assessed annually for proficiency in English. However, states have 

different methods of identifying which students have limited English 

proficiency (see fig. 1). These varied methods, along with any differences 

in interpreting student performance on such screenings, could result in a 

lack of uniformity in the population identified as having limited English 

proficiency. States generally employ home language surveys—

questionnaires asking what languages are spoken at home—to determine 

which students should be screened for English proficiency. However, 

beyond the home language survey, methodologies for determining a 

student’s English proficiency vary. States use different screening 

instruments, and even within a state, there could be variation in the 

instruments used. In addition, some states and school districts may 

Page 14 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
implement other methods—such as subjective teacher observation 

reports—in determining a student’s language proficiency. Regardless of 

how states determine which students have limited English proficiency and 

need language services, they are required to offer services and assess the 

progress of all such students. 

Figure 1: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (State Data) 

No

No

Yes

Limited English

proficient 

Yes

Student

enters

school ➡

district

➡

Student asessed annually

School/District determines English language ability with 

an assessment or through teacher observation

Not limited 

English proficient 

Home language survey:a Does

the student speak a language 

other than English at home?

Does the student meet criteria

for limited English proficiency?

Not limited 

English proficient 

Student may then 

be offered services

Source: GAO analysis of state-provided data. Art Explosion (images).

a

A home language survey is a survey asking questions about what language the child speaks (other

than English) at home. 

The ACS data used by Education to represent the number of students with 

limited English proficiency are based on a sample of the population. In 

particular, these data represent the number of persons ages 5 to 21 who 

speak a language other than English in the home and who report speaking

English less than “very well” (see fig. 2). The responses to the question 

regarding how well members of the respondent’s household speak English 

Page 15 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
are subjective. The Census Bureau has found some inconsistency with 

these responses in its re-interview process, which is a data quality check.15

Figure 2: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (ACS) 

English proficiency

Yes

No

}

ACS data are reported to Education based on responses to the following questions:

Education considers these children 

to have limited English proficiency

Not at all

Not well

Well

Not limited

English proficient

Not limited

English proficient 

Is a language other than

English spoken in the home?

Very well

How well do 

household 

members speak 

English? [data

reported to 

Education for 

ages 5 - 21]

Source: GAO analysis of ACS information.

It is not known how accurately the ACS data reflect the population of 

students with limited English proficiency. According to Census officials, 

no research exists on the linkage between the responses to the ACS 

English ability questions and the identification of students with limited 

English proficiency.16 Because ACS data are used as the basis of Title III-

 15 See Paula Schneider, Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, 

Topic Report No. 12 , TR-12, Content and Data Quality in Census 2000 (U.S. Census

Bureau: Washington, D.C.: March 2004). 

16Census officials provided a 1989 study, How Good is How Well, that discussed a 1982 

study conducted by Education exploring the relationship between answering “very well” on

the English ability questions and performance on a language ability test. The study focused 

on adults (not on students with limited English proficiency). The Census study explored 

the relationships between responses to the English ability questions and other factors 

linked to English usage. We were not able to assess the reliability of these studies. 

Page 16 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
funding distribution, it is critical to understand how accurately these data

represent the population and whether they do so uniformly across states. 

In addition, ACS data for 2003 and 2004 show some large fluctuations in 

the number of respondents who speak English less than very well. In part, 

these fluctuations can be attributed to the partial implementation of the 

ACS in these 2 years.17 The full implementation of the ACS occurred in 

2005, and the data on English ability were not yet available at the time of 

our review. Our analysis of the 2003 and 2004 ACS data that Education 

used as the basis of Title III funding showed that 13 states had increases of 

10 percent or more in this population, while 20 states and the District of 

Columbia had decreases of 10 percent or more from the prior year. 

Table 2: Volatility in ACS Data 

Number of students with limited English 

proficiency (speak English less than “very well”)

Census 2000 ACS 2003 ACS 2004

Annual rate of

 “growth” from

 2000 to 2003 

Difference

 in Counts 

(2003-2004)

Annual rate of

growth from 

2003 to 2004

State Totals without Puerto 

Rico 

3,493,118 3,942,395 3,792,910 4.1% -149,485 -3.8%

Totals with Puerto Rico 4,102,851 4,709,128 4,559,643 4.7% -149,485 -3.2%

 

Alabama 12,187 15,225 14,970 7.7% -255 -1.7%

Alaska 6,126 5,500 5,090 -3.5% -410 -7.5%

Arizona 108,738 117,530 101,140 2.6% -16,390 -14.0%

Arkansas 11,660 13,635 21,800 5.4% 8,165 59.9%

California 1,111,387 1,050,180 1,075,825 -1.9% 25,645 2.4%

Colorado 45,866 66,865 60,430 13.4% -6,435 -9.6%

Connecticut 31,705 28,080 33,020 -4.0% 4,940 17.6%

Delaware 4,877 6,030 7,015 7.3% 985 16.3%

District of Columbia 4,509 5,835 2,950 9.0% -2,885 -49.4%

Florida 179,109 231,710 235,830 9.0% 4,120 1.8%

Georgia 62,289 93,155 78,495 14.4% -14,660 -15.7%

Hawaii 13,585 10,565 12,945 -8.0% 2,380 22.5%

Idaho 8,812 12,485 12,550 12.3% 65 0.5%

 17 ACS was not fully funded prior to 2005; the 2003 and 2004 data were based on a sample 

that was approximately one third the size of the full sample of 2005. Consequently, the 

sampling errors associated with the smaller sample are larger than they would be with the

full sample. 

Page 17 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Number of students with limited English 

proficiency (speak English less than “very well”)

Census 2000 ACS 2003 ACS 2004

Annual rate of

 “growth” from

 2000 to 2003 

Difference

 in Counts 

(2003-2004)

Annual rate of

growth from 

2003 to 2004

Illinois 165,553 176,630 182,210 2.2% 5,580 3.2%

Indiana 26,562 57,500 70,380 29.4% 12,880 22.4%

Iowa 13,632 17,370 12,900 8.4% -4,470 -25.7%

Kansas 17,992 15,965 17,160 -3.9% 1,195 7.5%

Kentucky 10,896 16,565 17,580 15.0% 1,015 6.1%

Louisiana 15,265 18,740 15,235 7.1% -3,505 -18.7%

Maine 2,503 2,590 3,865 1.2% 1,275 49.2%

Maryland 34,318 38,640 39,900 4.0% 1,260 3.3%

Massachusetts 60,631 77,685 59,785 8.6% -17,900 -23.0%

Michigan 48,542 72,320 49,255 14.2% -23,065 -31.9%

Minnesota 37,703 44,530 48,180 5.7% 3650 8.2%

Mississippi 7,168 7,410 4,775 1.1% -2,635 -35.6%

Missouri 19,607 28,600 19,950 13.4% -8,650 -30.24%

Montana 2,673 1,515 2,920 -17.2% 1,405 92.7%

Nebraska 11,013 14,100 12,460 8.6% -1,640 -11.6%

Nevada 34,337 48,730 58,010 12.4% 9,280 19.0%

New Hampshire 3,443 5,905 5,195 19.7% -710 -12.0%

New Jersey 99,993 121,360 100,680 6.7% -20,680 -17.0%

New Mexico 38,436 40,205 27,690 1.5% -12,,515 -31.1%

New York 303,212 388,795 332,065 8.6% -56730 -14.6%

North Carolina 50,797 65,600 73,710 8.9% 8,110 12.4%

North Dakota 1,512 2,190 2,095 13.1% -95 -4.3%

Ohio 43,675 42,860 48,885 -0.6% 6,025 14.1%

Oklahoma 18,067 31,570 20,575 20.5% -10,995 -34.8%

Oregon 34,654 37,755 43,100 2.9% 5,345 14.2%

Pennsylvania 63,638 61,600 75,935 - 1.1% 14,335 23.3%

Rhode Island 12,170 17,865 11,875 13.7% -5,990 -33.5%

South Carolina 14,915 16,155 15,525 2.7% -630 -3.9%

South Dakota 3,590 4,055 2,855 4.1% -1200 -29.6%

Tennessee 18,069 25,595 33,180 12.3% 7,585 29.6%

Texas 516,819 603,105 545,330 5.3% -57,775 -9.6%

Utah 18,171 19,215 20,590 1.9% 1,375 7.2%

Vermont 1,435 1,585 1,140 3.4% -445 -28.1%

Virginia 43,377 53,935 52,640 7.5% -1,295 -2.4%

Washington 59,677 58,840 59,350 -0.5% 510 0.9%

Page 18 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Number of students with limited English 

proficiency (speak English less than “very well”)

Census 2000 ACS 2003 ACS 2004

Annual rate of

 “growth” from

 2000 to 2003 

Difference

 in Counts 

(2003-2004)

Annual rate of

growth from 

2003 to 2004

West Virginia 2,495 2,465 2,320 -0.4% -145 -5.9%

Wisconsin 34,285 44,275 39,665 8.9% -4,610 -10.4%

Wyoming 1,443 1,780 1,885 7.3% 105 5.9%

 

Puerto Rico 609,733 766,733 

Source: GAO analysis of Census and ACS data. 

Further, seven of the states that showed decreases of 10 percent or more 

in the ACS 2003-04 data representing students with limited English 

proficiency also showed an increase in the number of recent immigrants 

for this period. Many of these immigrants were likely to have limited 

English proficiency. For example, according to ACS data that Education 

uses to represent students with limited English proficiency, Rhode Island 

had a decrease of 33.5 percent in this population at the same time that it 

had an increase (about 33 percent) in the number of recent immigrants 

(age 3 to 21).

18

Education used the most current ACS data available to distribute Title III 

funding across the states, consequently the fluctuations in the ACS data 

were reflected in fluctuations in funding. In so far as these data reflect 

population changes, such fluctuations are to be expected. However, if the 

fluctuations were due to errors resulting from the sample size for the 2003 

and 2004 ACS data, then they may have resulted in some states receiving a

greater (or lesser) proportion of the funds than their population of 

students with limited English proficiency and recently immigrated 

children and youth would warrant.19 Table 3 shows Education’s 

distribution of Title III funds across states for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

 18 The 7 states that had at least a 10 percent drop in the ACS number Education uses to 

represent the number of students with limited English proficiency and an increase in the 

number of recent immigrants are: Arizona, Georgia, New York, Rhode Island, South 

Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.

19 ACS data will continue to experience some degree of volatility due to the introduction of

the full household sample size for 2005, changes in response rates, changes in annual 

population controls (which determine the annual changes in the population and its

characteristics), and the incorporation of information from the 2010 Decennial Census. 

Page 19 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Table 3: Allocation of Title III Funds for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 

Title III Allocations to states

FY 2005

(Dollars)

FY 2006 

(Dollars) 

Percentage

Difference

Totals with 

Puerto Rico 579,164,605 617,176,837 6.56%

Alabama 2,969,385 3,174,723 6.92%

Alaska 835,169 951,490 13.93%

Arizona 16,053,667 17,374,634 8.23%

Arkansas 1,986,077 3,612,909 81.91%

California 149,565,827 166,955,253 11.63%

Colorado 9,947,707 9,613,097 -3.36%

Connecticut 4,440,248 5,571,146 25.47%

Delaware 876,486 1,212,964 38.39%

Florida 38,999,401 42,709,671 9.51%

Georgia 13,281,802 13,188,888 -0.70%

Hawaii 1,645,216 2,298,533 39.71%

Idaho 2,107,363 2,030,270 -3.66%

Illinois 24,732,083 28,836,450 16.60%

Indiana 7,644,463 10,667,335 39.54%

Iowa 2,907,230 2,020,724 -30.49%

Kansas 2,417,540 2,740,852 13.37%

Kentucky 2,404,457 3,118,830 29.71%

Louisiana 3,317,197 2,346,119 -29.27%

Maine 500,000 621,027 24.21%

Maryland 6,654,183 7,437,226 11.77%

Massachusetts 11,258,663 9,855,919 -12.46%

Michigan 11,540,302 8,594,099 -25.53%

Minnesota 6,595,273 7,098,282 7.63%

Mississippi 1,017,471 742,851 -26.99%

Missouri 4,538,410 3,100,690 -31.68%

Montana 500,000 500,000 0.00%

Nebraska 2,143,231 2,130,605 -0.59%

Nevada 6,865,410 8,673,706 26.34%

New Hampshire 1,056,420 823,886 -22.01%

New Jersey 20,186,729 16,783,993 -16.86%

New Mexico 5,347,129 4,051,960 -24.22%

Page 20 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Title III Allocations to states

FY 2005

(Dollars)

FY 2006 

(Dollars) 

Percentage

Difference

New York 53,923,317 53,526,957 -0.74%

North Carolina 9,979,375 12,582,872 26.09%

North Dakota 500,000 500,000 0.00%

Ohio 6,567,211 8,027,863 22.24%

Oklahoma 4,869,319 3,843,474 -21.07%

Oregon 5,300,358 6,888,009 29.95%

Pennsylvania 8,982,966 11,458,626 27.56%

Rhode Island 2,375,164 1,950,367 -17.88%

South Carolina 2,588,131 2,502,240 -3.32%

South Dakota 515,986 500,000 -3.10%

Tennessee 4,546,936 5,523,057 21.47%

Texas 82,422,240 85,865,561 4.18%

Utah 2,888,015 3,652,520 26.47%

Vermont 500,000 500,000 0.00%

Virginia 9,222,809 9,823,062 6.51%

Washington 8,547,438 10,265,825 20.10%

West Virginia 610,998 500,000 -18.17%

Wisconsin 6,171,980 6,258,643 1.40%

Wyoming 500,000 500,000 0.00%

District of Columbia 922,000 583,745 -36.69%

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

Note: States studied in bold. 

In our 12 study states, we found differences between the state-reported 

number of students identified as having limited English proficiency and 

the ACS data that Education uses to represent this population of students 

(see fig. 3). In 6 states, the 2004 ACS number was greater than the state’s 

count (for school year 2004-05), while in the other 6 states the ACS 

number was less than the corresponding state count.20 For example, while 

California reported having about 1.6 million students with limited English 

proficiency in the 2004-05 school year, ACS estimates of the population of 

persons ages 5 to 21 who speak a language other than English in the home 

 20In all but one of the 12 study states, the state data were outside the margin of error—that

is they fell outside the 90 percent confidence interval provided by ACS. Florida’s data were 

within the margin of error. 

Page 21 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
and speak English less than “very well” was less than 1.1 million. This 

represents a difference of almost 50 percent. The difference in New York 

for that school year was also large—New York reported about 204,000 

students with limited English proficiency—and the ACS number used by 

Education was about 332,000, a difference of almost 40 percent for the 

same school year (see fig. 3). 

Figure 3: Percentage Differences between School Year 2004-05 State-Reported Data and 2004 ACS Data in 12 Study States 

Percent difference

0

20

40

80

60

-60

-40

-20

N.J. N.Y. Ga. Mass. Ill. Fla. Tex. Nev. Wash. Calif. Ariz. Colo.

Source: GAO analysis of state and ACS data.

43,000

53,000

28,000 516,000

140,000 14,000

-6,000

-10,000 -29,000

-26,000

-128,000

-45,000

Differences in 

number of children

State-reported

number of students with

limited English proficiency

was less than ACS estimate

State-reported

number of students with 

limited English proficiency

was greater than ACS estimate

Note: GAO collected these state data because, at the time of our review, Education had not 

completed its review of the reasonableness of the Consolidated State Performance Report data on 

the number of students with limited English proficiency that was being done to provide reliable data 

for input into Education’s new national data system.

Education used ACS data for the number of immigrant children and youth 

for fiscal years 2005 and 2006; however, for fiscal years 2002-2004, 

Page 22 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Education relied on state-reported counts of the number of immigrant 

children and youth. With regard to data states collect on the number of 

children and youth who are recent immigrants, state officials expressed a 

lack of confidence in these data. State officials in some of the 12 study 

states told us that these data were not very reliable because school and 

school district officials did not ask about immigration status directly. 

Some state and school district officials told us that in order to determine 

whether a student should be classified as a recent immigrant, they relied

on information such as place of birth and the student’s date of entry into 

the school system. Officials in one state told us that in the absence of prior 

school documentation, they made the assumption that if a student was 

born outside the U.S. and entered the state’s school system within the last 

3 years, then the student was a recent immigrant. See table 4 for more 

information about the characteristics of state-collected data and ACS data 

pertaining to children and youth who are recent immigrants. 

Table 4: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Immigrant Children and Youth

Feature 

ACS data on 

immigrant children and youtha

State-collected data on

immigrant children and youthb

Measures provided Number of foreign-born persons ages 3 to21 who 

arrived in the United States within the 3 years

prior to the survey. 

Number of students in grades K-12 identified as 

recent immigrants. 

How it is measured Self report (sample of population). States make determinations based on student 

records or other information. Some states told us 

that they are not able to directly ask students 

questions related to their immigration status. 

Timing Annual average of monthly sample. Varies. 

Purpose To comply with Immigration Nationality Act and 

Public Health Service Act requirements. 

To provide data to set and evaluate immigration 

policies and laws. 

To comply with the NCLBA requirement to assess 

progress of all limited English proficient children, 

including immigrant children and youth, to attain 

English proficiency. 

Education’s role in data 

collection 

Work with Census to make sure appropriate 

questions are included. 

Can propose new questions, if necessary. 

Education collects this number from the states in 

the Consolidated State Performance Reports. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from Census, Education, and 12 study states. 

a

This column refers to data obtained by Education from ACS, but ACS collects additional data. 

b

Some states may have data available for children prior to kindergarten. 

The ACS data on the number of children and youth who are recent 

immigrants represent the number of foreign-born persons ages 3 to 21 who 

came to the United States within the 3 years prior to the survey. Similar to 

the ACS data that Education used to represent students with limited 

Page 23 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
English proficiency, these data are also based on self reports. However, 

the ACS responses are more objective (e.g., the date of entry into the 

United States) and therefore may be more consistent than the responses to 

the English ability questions. 

Some States Could Receive 

More Funding While 

Others Could Receive Less 

Depending on Which Data 

Source Education Uses 

Education’s choice to use one data set over the other has implications for 

the amount of funding states receive because the data sources specified in 

NCLBA measure different populations in different ways. We simulated the 

distribution of funds across our 12 study states, using ACS data and data 

representing the number of students with limited English proficiency 

reported to us by state officials. We used the number of students with 

limited English proficiency identified by states, rather than the number of 

these students assessed annually for their English proficiency because 

state-reported data on the number of students assessed for school years 

2003-04 or 2004-05 were not available for all the 12 study states. 

Throughout the simulation, we used ACS data representing the number of 

immigrant children and youth. Based on our simulation, we found that in 

fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 5 of the 12 study states—Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Nevada, and Washington—would have received more funding 

and the other 7 study states would have received less (see figs. 4 and 5). 

Page 24 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Figure 4: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based on a 

Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2005) 

Source: GAO analysis of ACS and state-reported data.

Nev.

1.6%

1.8%

Wash.

2.0%

2.3%

Tex.

18.9%

Colo.

2.3%

2.7%

Ariz.

4.4%

Mass.

2.6%

1.7%

Ill.

4.7%

Fla.

8.9%

Ga.

3.0%

1.8%

N.J.

2.8%

N.Y.

12.4%

Calif.

34.3%

Outer circle: Distribution of funds across 12 states based on ACS data Education uses to estimate 

the number of immigrant youths and students with limited English proficiency 

Inner circle: Simulated redistribution of funds across 12 states based on state counts of students

with limited English proficiency and ACS data for immigrant youths

Calif.

44.6%

Tex.

18.6%

Ariz.

3.7%

Ill.

5.7%

Fla.

8.0%

N.J.

4.6%

N.Y.

6.7%

Results of simulation of funding differences

FY 2005 allocation

Page 25 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Figure 5: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based on a 

Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2006) 

Source: GAO analysis of ACS and state-reported data.

Nev.

2%

2%

Colo.

2%

3% Wash.

2%

3%

Fla.

9%

Ill.

6%

Tex.

19%

Ariz.

4%

Mass.

2%

3%

Ga.

2%

N.J.

2%

N.Y.

12%

Calif.

42%

Outer circle: Distribution of funds across 12 states based on ACS data Education uses to estimate 

the number of immigrant youths and students with limited English proficiency 

Inner circle: Simulated redistribution of funds across 12 states based on state counts of students

with limited English proficiency and ACS data for immigrant youths

Calif.

33%

Fla.

8%

Ill.

5%

Tex.

19%

Ariz.

5%

Ga.

3%

N.J.

5%

N.Y.

7%

Page 26 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Federal funds for students with limited English proficiency and immigrant 

children and youth increased significantly from fiscal year 2001—the year

prior to the enactment of the NCLBA— to fiscal year 2006. In addition to 

the increase in funding to the states, many more school districts received 

funds under the Title III formula grant program. 

Federal funding for students with limited English proficiency and 

immigrant children and youth increased significantly from fiscal year 2001

(the year prior to the enactment of NCLBA) to fiscal year 2002 when 

Congress first authorized Education to distribute funds to states under 

Title III. In fiscal year 2001 states, schools, school districts, and 

universities received almost all of the $446 million dollars appropriated for 

Title VII to educate students with limited English proficiency, including

immigrant students. Congress appropriated over $650 million for this 

purpose in fiscal year 2002. Annual appropriations remained between $650 

million and $685 million in fiscal years 2003-06 (see fig. 6). 

Under NCLBA, 

Federal Funding for 

Students with Limited 

English Proficiency 

and Immigrant 

Children and Youth 

Has Increased, and 

More School Districts 

Are Receiving Funds 

Funding for Students with 

Limited English 

Proficiency and Immigrant 

Students Increased 

Significantly under Title III 

from Title VII Levels 

Page 27 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Figure 6: Appropriations for Programs to Support Students with Limited English 

Proficiency Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Appropriations for programs (dollars in millions)

Source: U.S. Department of Education data.

Fiscal year

Under NCLBA, 37 states received an increase in funding to support 

students with limited English proficiency and immigrant children and 

youth in fiscal year 2006,21 compared to funding in fiscal year 2001 under 

Title VII. Education provided about 93 percent (more than $600 million) of 

funds to support students with limited English proficiency and immigrant 

children and youth to states based on the Title III formula for funding 

distribution in fiscal year 2006. The remainder funded other Title III 

programs, including professional development grants (5.4%) and Native 

American and Alaskan Native grants (1.2%). 

In fiscal year 2001, Education distributed 41.2 percent of the $432 million22

of Title VII funds provided to states in the form of discretionary grants to 

schools, school districts, and state education agencies to support the 

 21 Fiscal year 2006 is the most recent year for which we have state by state Title III funding

allocations. 

22 Of the $446 million appropriated for Title VII in fiscal year 2001, about $14 million was 

retained by Education to support the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education and 

other support services. 

Page 28 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
education of students with limited English proficiency, and 22.5 percent 

for professional development of teachers and others associated with the 

education of these students. Education allocated (34.4%) to states to 

support the education of immigrant students under the Emergency 

Immigrant program and the remaining 1.9 percent to state educational 

agencies for program administration and to provide technical assistance to 

school districts. (See fig. 7 for distribution of Title VII funds in total and 

Title III funds by program for fiscal years 2001-06.) 

Figure 7: Distribution of Title VII and Title III Funds Provided to States in Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2006 

Percentage of fund distributions

Fiscal year

Title III - Native American and Alaskan grants

Title III - National professional development grants

Title III - Formula grants to states (LEP and Emergency Immigrant Funds)

Title VII - Grant funds for students with limited English proficiency

Source: U.S. Department of Education data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

The percentage of grant funding specified for professional development 

decreased from 22.5 percent under Title VII in fiscal year 2001 to about 5.4 

percent under Title III in fiscal year 2006. However, Education officials 

told us that states and school districts are required to use a portion of the 

Title III formula grant funding they receive to provide professional 

development for teachers and other staff even though the level of funds is

not specified in the law. As a result, officials believe that more funds are 

Page 29 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
being spent for professional development under Title III than under Title 

VII. 

The percentage of funding provided for programs specifically for 

immigrant students was higher under Title VII than under Title III. Under 

Title VII, Education distributed about 34 percent of fiscal year 2001 

funding to states based on the number of immigrant students in the state. 

In contrast, 20 percent of the Title III formula grant funds is distributed to 

states on the basis of their relative number of immigrant students. Upon 

receiving Title III grants, states are to reserve up to 15 percent of their 

formula grants to award subgrants to school districts within the state with 

significant increases in school enrollment of immigrant children and 

youth. Officials in our study states told us that the percentage of funds 

they reserved specifically for providing enhanced instructional 

opportunities for immigrant children and youth ranged from 0 to15 

percent, and varied in some states from year to year. For example, one 

state’s officials noted that the percentage varied from 8 percent in fiscal 

year 2003 to none in fiscal year 2005. Officials in our study states generally

explained that they distributed Title III funds reserved for this purpose to 

school districts with a significant increase in immigrant students over the 

previous 2 years. For example, another state official stated that to receive

these funds, school districts must have an increase of either 3 percent or 

50 students from the average of the 2 previous years, whichever is less, 

and must have a minimum of 10 immigrant students. 

More School Districts 

Received Funds for 

Students with Limited 

English Proficiency under 

Title III Formula-Based 

Funding Than under the 

Title VII Discretionary 

Grants 

The number of school districts receiving federal funding for students with 

limited English proficiency has increased under Title III compared to 

under Title VII. For example, in three of our study states (California, 

Texas, and Illinois) more than 1,900 school districts received funding for 

students with limited English proficiency under Title III in school year 

2003-04 compared to about 500 school districts (including districts in 

which schools were awarded Title VII grants directly) receiving such 

funding under Title VII. Further, fewer schools in a district receiving Title 

VII funds may have actually benefited from these funds. For example, 

officials in two districts noted that under Title III all schools in the 

districts received some funds to support their students with limited 

English proficiency. In contrast, these officials told us that prior to 

NCLBA, Title VII discretionary grants were targeted to some schools in 

their districts while other schools with students with limited English 

Page 30 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
proficiency received no Title VII funds. Education officials estimated that 

Title III funds are now being used to support 80 percent of the students 

with limited English proficiency in schools.23

States and school districts reported using Title III funds to support a 

variety of programs and activities for students with limited English 

proficiency, ranging from various types of language instruction programs 

to professional development. With regard to challenges in implementing 

effective programs, officials we interviewed in 5 study states and 8 school 

districts reported difficulty recruiting qualified staff. 

Nationwide, states and school districts reported using Title III funds to 

support a variety of programs and activities, including language 

instruction, activities to support immigrant children and youth, 

professional development, and technical assistance. For example, all fifty 

states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico reported that school 

districts receiving Title III funds implemented various types of language 

instruction programs, including bilingual and English as a second language 

(ESL) programs, according to 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports

to Education.24 Specifically, all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico reported using ESL programs, which typically involve little or no use 

of the native language, such as sheltered English instruction and pull-out 

ESL.25 In addition, all but 12 states also reported using bilingual programs, 

States and School 

Districts Used Title III 

Funds to Support 

Programs for 

Students with Limited 

English Proficiency, 

but Some Cited 

Challenges Recruiting 

Highly Qualified Staff 

Title III Funds Supported 

Various Programs and 

Activities, Including 

Language Instruction and 

Professional Development 

 23 We did not assess the reliability of this estimate. 

24 Appendix I provides descriptions of different types of language instruction programs. 

25 Sheltered English instruction and pull-out ESL are both language instruction programs in

which students with limited English proficiency are instructed in English. The sheltered

English instruction helps students with limited English proficiency become proficient in

English while at the same time learning academic content. The pull-out approach moves

students with limited English proficiency out of the regular classroom for special 

instruction in English as a second language. 

Page 31 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
which may provide instruction in two languages, such as dual language 

programs that are designed to serve both English-proficient and limited 

English proficient students concurrently (see table 5). (See app. II for 

more information regarding language-instruction programs that states, the

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported using.) 

Table 5: Number of States, Including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, That 

Reported Using Title III Funds to Support Different Types of Language Instruction 

Programs 

Type of language instruction program

Number of

statesa

 using funds

to support program

ESL: 52

Sheltered English instruction 45

Structured English immersion 35

Specially designed academic instruction delivered in

English 

17

Content-based ESL 41

Pull-out ESL 44

Otherb22

Bilingual programs: 40

Dual language 30

Two-way immersion 17

Transitional bilingual 31

Developmental bilingual 11

Heritage language 15

Otherc7

Source: GAO Analysis of 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports to the US Department of Education. 

a

Includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

b

Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III funds implemented other ESL programs; 

for example, one state reported districts used push-in ESL, which it described as providing instruction

in English and native language support if needed to students with limited English proficiency in the 

regular classroom. Two states noted using the inclusion approach, in which the ESL teacher is 

actually in the classroom and helps to facilitate the instruction delivery of the regular classroom 

teacher, with appropriate modifications for students with limited English proficiency. 

c

Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III funds implemented other bilingual 

programs; for example, one state noted using foreign language immersion, which it described as a 

bilingual program in which students with limited English proficiency are taught primarily or exclusively 

through sheltered instruction or a second language, later combined with native language classes. 

Forty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported that 

school districts used Title III funds designated to support activities for 

Page 32 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
immigrant children and youth for programs such as parent outreach, 

tutorials, mentoring, and identifying and acquiring instructional materials. 

For example, officials in one state noted that many school districts used 

these funds to expand activities designed for all students with limited 

English proficiency, while other districts used them to meet the unique 

needs of immigrant students not addressed through other programs, such 

as providing counseling for traumatized refugee students. Officials in 

another state noted that school districts commonly used these funds to 

provide newcomer centers that provided educational and other services to

recent immigrants and their parents. Funds were also used to provide ESL 

classes before and after school for recent immigrant students as well as 

ESL classes, literacy classes, and computer classes for their parents. 

States also reported that Title III funds supported professional 

development activities. Specifically, all states, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico reported that school districts used Title III funds to 

conduct professional development activities for teachers or other 

personnel, such as workshops or seminars on the administration and 

interpretation of English language proficiency assessments or on various 

teaching strategies for students with limited English proficiency. In 

addition, 40 states reported reserving a portion of state-level funds26 to 

provide professional development to assist teachers and other personnel 

in meeting state and local certification, endorsement and licensing 

requirements for teaching these students. For example, one state reported 

offering a seminar once per year that provided professional development 

hours that participants could use to meet state certification or 

endorsement requirements, and another state noted that it reimbursed 

teachers for tuition for courses that led to ESL endorsement. 

In addition, 4927 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported 

reserving state-level funds for other activities, including providing 

technical assistance, planning, and administration (table 6). All 12 study 

states reported reserving state-level funds. While all study states reported 

reserving state-level funds for administration—including salaries for Title 

III staff—as well as for professional development and technical assistance, 

 26 NCLBA allows states to reserve up to 5 percent of Title III funds for state-level activities. 

27 Illinois did not complete the relevant checklists in the 2002-04 Biennial Evaluation

Report. However, Illinois described implementing certain state-level activities in the 

response narrative in the Biennial. Illinois officials also told us, during our visit, that the

state reserves state-level funds. 

Page 33 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
the majority of study states also reserved these funds for other activities, 

such as to develop guidance on English language proficiency standards. 

Table 6: Number of States, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds for Various 

State-Level Activities 

Type of state-level activity 

Number of statesa

 reserving

state-level funds for activity

Technical assistance in one or more of the following areas: 51

identifying or developing and implementing measures of English language proficiency 50

helping students with limited English proficiency meet standards expected of all 

students 48

implementing English language instructional programs based on scientific research 47

promoting parental and community participation in programs for students with limited 

English proficiency 44

other areas (such as strategic planning) 12

Other state-level activities: 51

planning 40

administration 40

professional development for certification/licensing requirements 40

interagency cooperation 38

evaluation 36

other 7

Source: GAO analysis of 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports to the U.S. Department of Education.

a

States include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

Similarly, in interviews with officials in 11 school districts and schools28

we visited in 6 of our study states, we found that Title III funds were used 

to support a variety of programs and activities for these students. Most 

districts we visited reported using Title III funds for the instructional 

program and materials as well as for professional development and 

assessments. In addition, districts used these funds to provide services, 

such as after-school tutoring or summer school programs, and for parent

outreach activities, such as adult ESL classes or workshops on how to 

help your child succeed in school. 

For example, in one school district, we visited a high school that used Title 

III funds for two English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teachers 

 28 We visited one school in each of the 11 districts. 

Page 34 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
and one teacher aide who worked with all of the school’s limited English 

proficient students. School officials also said that the county used Title III

funds for a resource teacher who visited their school on a weekly basis to 

instruct teachers in ESOL strategies. The resource teacher also provided 

individualized pull-out instruction. This school also purchased computerbased learning software with Title III funds. 

NCLBA requires school districts to use a portion of Title III funds for 

language instruction programs for students with limited English 

proficiency and to provide professional development to teachers or other 

personnel. However, Education found issues related to these required uses

during Title III-monitoring visits to seven states. For example, Education 

found that one of two districts visited in one state used all its Title III 

funds for teacher salaries and benefits. Education found that this issue 

arose due to a lack of familiarity with federal requirements and required 

the state to develop a corrective action plan. However, in the remaining 14 

states monitored to date, Education did not find any issues related to the 

required uses. 

Some States and School 

Districts Cited Challenges 

in Recruiting Highly

Qualified Staff 

Officials in five study states and in 8 school districts in the six states we 

visited reported that difficulty hiring qualified teachers or other personnel 

that meet NCLBA requirements presented challenges to implementing 

effective programs. NCLBA requires public school teachers to be highly

qualified in every core academic subject they teach29 and increased the 

level of funding to help states and districts implement teacher qualification 

requirements, including activities to help states and districts recruit and 

retain highly qualified teachers. However, officials in one district we 

visited noted that teacher transience in high-needs schools presents 

challenges because schools must continually provide training to new staff 

on strategies for teaching students with limited English proficiency. In

another district, officials noted a particular challenge in locating qualified 

substitute teachers to work with these students when necessary. 

Prior GAO work also found that states and school districts were 

experiencing challenges implementing NCLBA’s teacher qualification 

requirements, including difficulties with teacher recruitment and 

retention. While we found that many of the hindrances reported by state 

 29 Core subjects include English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign 

languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography. 

Page 35 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
and district officials could not be addressed by Education, Education had 

identified several steps it would take in its 2002-07 strategic plan related to

these issues, including supporting professional development and 

encouraging innovative teacher compensation and accountability systems. 

Education’s oversight included Title III monitoring visits; twice yearly 

discussions with states on information they provide to Education, known 

as desk audits; and continuous informal monitoring in response to 

questions from states. As part of its oversight effort, Education 

implemented a monitoring program in 2005 to address each states’ 

administration of the Title III program. This monitoring effort was 

designed to provide regular, systematic reviews and evaluations of how 

states meet Title III requirements to ensure that they implement and 

administer programs in accordance with the law. Monitoring is conducted 

on a 3-year cycle, and as of September 2006, Education officials had 

monitored and reported on 20 states and the District of Columbia. 

Education officials reported that they plan to visit 17 more states in fiscal

year 2007. 

Education Provided 

Oversight and 

Support to Help 

States Meet Title III 

Requirements 

As part of the monitoring visits, Education reviews states’ and districts’ 

implementation of NCLBA requirements, such as data to be included in 

required reports and required district uses of Title III funds. Education has 

found issues relating to a number of these requirements. For example, for 

4 of the 20 states monitored and the District of Columbia, Education had 

findings related to the data that these states submitted in their

Consolidated State Performance Reports. According to Education, 20 of 

the 21 monitoring reports had findings, and most states have developed 

corrective action plans to address them. Education officials stated that 

they are reviewing these plans and working with states to determine which 

findings have been appropriately addressed and to develop a time frame 

for resolving remaining findings. 

In addition, Education’s program officers perform semiannual reviews of 

states’ responses to sections of the Consolidated State Performance 

Report related to Title III and Biennial Evaluation Reports states submit 

to Education along with phone calls to state officials to address issues 

identified. For example, in October 2005 the program officers asked states 

how quickly they got the funding out to school districts because this was 

an area identified as a concern. Finally, Education officials explained that

they provide informal, ongoing monitoring by addressing issues brought 

up by state officials throughout the year. 

Page 36 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Education offered support in a variety of ways to help states meet Title III 

requirements. Education held on-site and phone meetings to provide 

technical assistance to states, such as how to address the needs of those 

students having both limited English proficiency and disabilities. 

Education also held annual conferences focused on students with limited 

English proficiency that included sessions that provided information to 

state Title III directors and others on a variety of topics, such as NCLBA 

policies related to students with limited English proficiency and English 

language proficiency assessment issues. Education also held semiannual 

meetings and training sessions with state Title III directors, a nationwide 

Web cast on English language achievement objectives, and also 

videoconference training sessions for some state officials on how to meet 

Title III requirements. The department issued guidance on issues related to 

students with limited English proficiency on its Web site and also 

distributed information through an electronic bulletin board and a weekly 

electronic newsletter focused on students with limited English proficiency 

and through the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition 

and Language Instruction Educational Programs. In addition, Education 

plans to provide assistance to individual states in developing appropriate 

goals for student progress in learning English through at least 3 of the 16 

regional comprehensive centers the agency has contracted with to build 

state capacity to help school districts that are not meeting their adequate 

yearly progress goals. 

Officials from 5 of the 12 study states reported general satisfaction with 

the guidance, training, and technical assistance Education provided. 

However, one area that officials from seven of the study states identified 

as a challenge was addressing the needs of those students having both

limited English proficiency and disabilities. Although Education issued 

guidance on including students with both limited English proficiency and 

disabilities in English language assessments and English proficiency goals, 

two states noted that the guidance does not specifically address how to 

serve those students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who 

also have limited English proficiency. Education estimates that nationwide 

about 1 percent of students have the most significant cognitive disabilities.

An Education official stated that there is limited research on how to 

address this group of students, but Education is working with states and 

experts to explore the appropriate identification, assessment, placement, 

and interventions for such students. 

Page 37 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
In addition, officials in 5 of the 12 study states thought more guidance was 

needed to develop English language proficiency assessments that meet 

NCLBA’s requirements. In our July 2006 report we found that Education 

has issued little written guidance on how states are expected to assess and 

track the English proficiency of these students, leaving some state officials 

unclear about Education’s expectations.30 We recommended that 

Education identify and provide the technical support states need to ensure 

the validity of academic assessments and publish additional guidance on 

requirements for assessing English language proficiency. Education 

agreed with our recommendations and has begun to identify the additional 

technical assistance needs of states and ways to provide additional 

guidance in these areas.

NCLBA was enacted to ensure that all students have the opportunity to 

succeed in school, including meeting state academic content standards 

and language proficiency standards. However, if Education does not use 

the most accurate data as the basis of Title III-funding distribution, funds 

may be misallocated across states. NCLBA specifies that Education is to 

distribute funds based on the more accurate data source—Census’ ACS 

data or the number of students with limited English proficiency assessed 

annually. Because Education has not provided states with clear 

instructions on the portions of the Consolidated State Performance Report

relevant to the collection of state data on the number of students with 

limited English proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency, it 

has been difficult for states to provide the data Education needs in order 

to consider the use of state data as the basis of distributing Title III funds. 

Until Education provides clear instructions, states may continue to 

provide inconsistent data. 

Conclusions 

Once Education has provided such instructions and continues to work 

with states to improve data quality, the state data will be more reliable and 

complete. In addition, as Education completes its review of state-supplied

school-year 2003-04 and 2004-05 data, it will be in a better position to 

consider the relative accuracy of the ACS and state data. However, 

 30 See GAO-06-815 for further information. 

Page 38 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
without a methodology in place to assess the relative accuracy of these 

data sources, it is unclear how Education will determine which data to use 

as the basis of Title III-funding distribution. This is of particular concern, 

since without such a methodology, it will remain unknown how well either 

of the two data sources captures the population of children with limited 

English proficiency. 

In addition, ACS data have shown volatility—large increases and 

decreases—in the numbers of students with limited English proficiency 

from 2003 to 2004. While some volatility may be related to population 

fluctuations, some is related to the ACS sample size. Consequently, states 

may experience excessive fluctuations in their funding amounts from year 

to year. Some states may continue to see large fluctuations in the Title III 

funding when data based on the fulI ACS sample are introduced, when 

data are based on new annual population estimates are incorporated, 

and when data based on the 2010 Decennial Census become available. As a 

result, states affected by this volatility may be unable to plan effectively. 

To address the need for reliable and complete state data on the number of 

students with limited English proficiency assessed annually, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Education clarify the instructions on the 

portions of the Consolidated State Performance Report relevant to the 

collection of data on the number of students with limited English 

proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency. 

Recommendations 

To strengthen the basis for Education’s distribution of Title III funds, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Education develop and implement a 

transparent methodology for determining the relative accuracy of the two 

allowable sources of data, ACS or state data on the number of students 

with limited English proficiency assessed annually, for Title III allocations

to states. 

To address volatility in annual ACS data, we recommend that as part of 

NCLBA reauthorization, the Secretary should seek authority to use 

statistical methodologies, such as multiyear averages. 

Page 39 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 

In a letter, Education agreed with our recommendation regarding the need

for reliable and complete data on the number of students with limited 

English proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency. The 

department stated that it has addressed this recommendation by revising 

the CSPR data collection form for the 2005-06 school year and by 

proposing additional changes to the 2007 CSPR (Part I) form. However, as 

stated in our report, Education did not provide documentation of the 

proposed changes. Further, it is not clear that the changes the department

describes would result in complete and reliable data on the number of 

students with English proficiency assessed annually for English 

proficiency. We still recommend that Education review and clarify 

instructions to allow for an unduplicated count of students that would 

meet NCLBA requirements for use as a potential data source for funding.

Regarding our second recommendation, Education agreed that it should 

develop a methodology to compare the relative accuracy of the two data 

sources, but stated that it should wait until the quality of state data 

improves. However, we encourage Education to take steps now to 

develop a methodology, since the department has been taking multiple 

steps to improve the quality and completeness of state data. In this way, 

Education will be positioned to determine which data source is the more 

accurate when state data has sufficiently improved. Finally, Education 

seemed to agree with our recommendation concerning the volatility of 

ACS data, but commented that the department did not have the legal 

authority to use multiyear averages of ACS data as the basis for 

distributing Title III funds. The department suggested that Congress might 

want to address this issue in the NCLBA reauthorization. As a result, we 

changed the recommendation to state that as part of NCLBA 

reauthorization, Education should seek authority to use statistical 

methodologies, such as multiyear averages, to address the volatility of ACS 

data. 

Education officials also provided technical comments that we 

incorporated into the report where appropriate. Education’s written 

comments are reproduced in appendix III. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, 

relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will 

also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report

will be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 40 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions 

about this report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Major contributors are listed in appendix IV. 

Cornelia M. Ashby, Director 

Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues

Page 41 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix I: Descriptions of Educational 

Programs for Language Instruction 

The following information was gathered from the National Clearinghouse 

of English Language Acquisition’s (NCELA) web site. NCELA identified 

various sources for the program descriptions. 

Table 7: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language Instruction 

Type of Program Description 

Bilingual education Bilingual education is an educational program in which two languages are used to provide

content matter instruction. Some bilingual programs use and promote two languages, 

while in others, bilingual children are present, but bilingualism is not fostered in the 

curriculum. 

Dual language program Also known as two-way immersion or two-way bilingual education, dual language 

programs are designed to serve both language minority and language majority students 

concurrently. Two language groups are put together and instruction is delivered through 

both languages. For example, in the United States, native English speakers might learn 

Spanish as a foreign language while continuing to develop their English literacy skills and 

Spanish-speaking students with limited English proficiency learn English while developing

literacy in Spanish. 

Two-way immersion See dual language program. 

Transitional bilingual education Transitional bilingual education is an instructional program in which subjects are taught 

through two languages—English and the native language of the English language 

learners—and English is taught as a second language. English language skills, grade 

promotion, and graduation requirements are emphasized, and the native language is 

used as a tool to learn content. The primary purpose of these programs is to facilitate the 

student with limited English proficiency’s transition to an all-English instructional 

environment while receiving academic subject instruction in the native language to the 

extent necessary. As proficiency in English increases, instruction through the native 

language decreases. Transitional bilingual education programs vary in the amount of 

native language instruction provided and the duration of the. Transitional bilingual 

education programs may be early-exit (in which children move from bilingual education 

programs to English-only classes in the first or second year of schooling) or late-exit (in 

which children participate in bilingual instruction for 3 or more years of schooling), 

depending on the amount of time a child may spend in the program. 

Developmental bilingual education Developmental bilingual education is a program that teaches content through two 

languages and develops both languages with the goal of bilingualism (e.g., the ability to 

use two languages) and biliteracy (e.g., the ability to effectively communicate or 

understand thoughts and ideas through two languages’ grammatical systems and 

vocabulary, using their written symbols). 

English as a second language (ESL) English as a second language is an educational approach in which English language 

learners are instructed in the use of the English language. Their instruction is based on a

special curriculum that typically involves little or no use of the native language, focuses on

language (as opposed to content), and is usually taught during specific school periods. 

For the rest of the school day, students may be placed in mainstream classrooms, an 

immersion program, or a bilingual education program. Every bilingual education program

has an English as a second language. 

Heritage language Heritage language refers to the language a person regards as their native, home, and/or 

ancestral language. This covers indigenous languages (e.g., Navajo) and in-migrant 

languages (e.g., Spanish in the U.S). 

Appendix I: Descriptions of Educational 

Programs for Language Instruction 

Page 42 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix I: Descriptions of Educational 

Programs for Language Instruction 

Type of Program Description 

Sheltered English instruction Sheltered English instruction is an approach used to make academic instruction in English 

understandable to English language learners to help them acquire proficiency in English 

while at the same time achieving in content areas. Sheltered English instruction differs 

from English as a second language in that English is not taught as a language with a 

focus on learning the language. Rather, content knowledge and skills are the goals. In the 

sheltered classroom, teachers use simplified language, physical activities, visual aids, and 

the environment to teach vocabulary for concept development in mathematics, science, 

social studies, and other subjects. 

Structured English immersion In this program, language minority students receive all of their subject matter instruction in

English. The teacher uses a simplified form of English. Students may use their native 

language in class; however, the teacher uses only English. The goal is to help minority 

language students acquire proficiency in English while at the same time achieving in 

content areas. 

Specially designed academic 

instruction in English 

Specially designed academic instruction in English is a program of instruction in a subject 

area, delivered in English, which is specially designed to provide students with limited

English proficiency with access to the curriculum. 

Content-based English as a second 

language

Content-based English as a second language is an approach to teaching English as a 

second language that makes use of instructional materials, learning tasks, and classroom 

techniques from academic content areas as the vehicle for developing language, content, 

cognitive, and study skills. English is used as the medium of instruction. 

Pull-out English as a second language Pull-out English as a second language is a program in which students with limited English

proficiency are “pulled out” of regular, mainstream classrooms for special instruction in 

English as a second language. 

Source: NCELA, http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/glossary.html as viewed on 9/22/2006. 

Page 43 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Language Instruction 

Educational Programs Used by States in

School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 

Bilingual Programs

State Dual language

Two way

immersion 

Transitional 

bilingual 

Developmental 

bilingual Heritage language Other

a

Ala.

Ak. x x x x x x

Ark.

Ariz. x x x

Calif. x x

Colo. x x x

Conn. x x

Del. x x x

D.C. x x x x

Fla. x x

Ga.

Hawaii x

Iowa x x x x

Id. x

Ill. x x x x x

Ind. x

Kan. x x x x

Ky. x x

La.

Mass. x x

Me. x x x

Md. x

Mich. x x x x

Minn. x x x

Mo.

Miss. x x

Mont. x

N.C. x x x x

N.D. x x x x

Neb. x x

N.H.

N.J. x x x x

N.M. x x x x x

Appendix II: Language Instruction 

Educational Programs Used by States in 

School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 

Page 44 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Language Instruction 

Educational Programs Used by States in

School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 

ESL 

Sheltered English

instruction

Structured English

immersion 

Specially designed

academic instruction

delivered in English Content-based ESL Pull-out ESL Other

b

x x x x x x

x x x

x x x x x x

x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x

x x x x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x

x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x x x x

Page 45 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Language Instruction 

Educational Programs Used by States in

School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 

Bilingual Programs 

State Dual language Two way immersion Transitional bilingual Developmental bilingual Heritage language Othera

Nev. x x

N.Y. x x x x

Ohio x x x

Okla. x

Ore. x x x

Penn. x

P.R. x

R.I. x x

S.C.

S.D. x x x

Tenn.

Tex. x x x x

Utah x x x

Vt.

Va.

Wash. x x

Wis. x x x x

W.Va.

Wyo.

Page 46 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Language Instruction 

Educational Programs Used by States in

School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 

ESL 

Sheltered English

instruction

Sheltered English

immersion 

Special designed

academic instruction

delivered in English Content-based ESL Pull-out ESL Other

b

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x

x

x x x

x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x

x x x x x

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education 2002-04 Biennial Evaluation Report to Congress 

a

Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III funds implement other bilingual 

programs; for example, one state noted using foreign language immersion, which it described as a 

bilingual program in which students with limited English proficiency are taught primarily or exclusively 

through sheltered instruction or a second language, later combined with native language classes. 

b

Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III funds implement other English as a 

second language programs; for example, one state reported districts use push-in ESL, which it 

described as providing instruction in English and native language support if needed to students with 

limited English proficiency in the regular classroom. Two states noted using the Inclusion approach, in 

which the English as a second language teacher is actually in the classroom and helps to facilitate 

the instruction delivery of the regular classroom teacher, with appropriate modifications for students 

with limited English proficiency. 

Page 47 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix III: Comments from the Department Appendix III: Comments from the of Education 

Department of Education 

Page 48 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 49 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 50 GAO-07-140 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contacts and 

cknowledgments 

Page 51 GAO-07-140

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov 

Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Julianne Hartman Cutts (Analystin-Charge) and Nagla’a El-Hodiri (Senior Economist) managed all aspects 

of this assignment. R. Jerry Aiken, Melinda L. Cordero, and Elisabeth 

Helmer made significant contributions to this report. Tovah Rom 

contributed to writing this report. Jean McSween, Robert Dinkelmeyer, 

and Robert Parker provided key technical support. James Rebbe provided 

legal support. 

No Child Left Behind Act

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130538) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER