United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2006 

 

NO CHILD LEFT 

BEHIND ACT 

Assistance from 

Education Could Help 

States Better Measure 

Progress of Students 

with Limited English 

Proficiency 

GAO reposted the web version of this report on September 20, 2006, 

to include a link to a Spanish translation of the Highlights page, 

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d061111high.pdf. 

Para ver la versión de “Highlights” en español, 

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d061111high.pdf, con la fecha del 20 de 

Septiembre de 2006, oprima aquí.

GAO-06-815 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 2006

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

Assistance from Education Could Help 

States Better Measure Progress of 

Students with Limited English Proficiency 

Highlights of GAO-06-815, a report to 

congressional requesters 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

(NCLBA) focused attention on the 

academic achievement of more than

5 million students with limited

English proficiency. Obtaining valid

test results for these students is

challenging, given their language 

barriers. This report describes 

(1) the extent to which these 

students are meeting annual

academic progress goals, (2) what 

states have done to ensure the 

validity of their academic 

assessments, (3) what states are 

doing to ensure the validity of their 

English language proficiency

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

Department of Education 

(Education) is supporting states’ 

efforts to meet NCLBA’s assessment 

requirements for these students. To

collect this information, we

convened a group of experts and 

studied five states (California, 

Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, 

and Texas). We also conducted a

state survey and reviewed state and 

Education documents. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary 

of Education (1) support research on 

accommodations, (2) identify and

provide technical support states need

to ensure the validity of academic 

assessments, (3) publish additional 

guidance on requirements for 

assessing English language 

proficiency, and (4) explore ways to 

provide additional flexibility for 

measuring annual progress for these 

students. Education generally agreed

with our recommendations. 

To view the Spanish translation of 

this highlights page, please see 

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/ 

d061111high.pdf.

In the 2003-2004 school year, state data showed that the percentage of 

students with limited English proficiency scoring proficient on a state’s 

language arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state’s annual 

progress goals in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained 

data. Further, our review of data 49 states submitted to Education showed 

that in most states, these students generally did not perform as well as other 

student groups on state mathematics tests. Factors other than student 

knowledge, such as how a state establishes its annual progress goals, can 

influence whether states meet their goals. 

For their academic assessments, officials in our five study states reported 

taking steps to follow generally accepted test development procedures and 

to ensure the validity and reliability of these tests for students with limited 

English proficiency, such as reviewing test questions for bias. However, our 

group of experts expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing

these students in a valid manner, noting that some states lack the resources 

and technical expertise to take appropriate steps to ensure the validity of 

tests for these students. Further, Education’s peer reviews of assessments in 

38 states found that 25 states did not provide adequate evidence to ensure 

the validity or reliability of academic test results for these students. To 

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

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

is lacking on what accommodations are effective in mitigating language

barriers. A minority of states used native language or alternate assessments 

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

develop and are not appropriate for all students. 

Many states are implementing new English language proficiency 

assessments in 2006 to meet NCLBA requirements; as a result, complete 

information on their validity and reliability is not yet available. In 2006, 22 

states used tests developed by one of four state consortia. Consortia and 

state officials reported taking steps to ensure the validity of these tests, such 

as conducting field tests. A 2005 Education-funded technical review of 

available documentation for 17 English language proficiency tests found 

insufficient documentation of the validity of these assessments’ results. 

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

students with limited English proficiency, such as peer reviews of states’ 

academic assessments. However, Education has issued little written 

guidance to states on developing English language proficiency tests. 

Officials in one-third of the 33 states we visited or directly contacted told us 

they wanted more guidance about how to develop tests that meet NCLBA 

requirements. Education has offered states some flexibility in how they 

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

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

measures appropriately track the academic progress of these students. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-815.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Marnie S. 

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

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 6

Students with Limited English Proficiency Performed below 

Progress Goals in 2004 in Two-Thirds of States, but States We

Studied Are Working to Improve Student Academic Performance 13 

Selected States Considered Language Issues When Developing

Academic Assessments, but Validity and Reliability Concerns 

Remain 25

Most States Implemented New English Language Proficiency 

Assessments but Faced Challenges Establishing Their Validity 

and Reliability 35 

Education Has Provided Assistance, but States Reported Need for 

Additional Guidance and Flexibility 41 

Conclusions 49

Recommendations for Executive Action 50 

Agency Comments 51 

Appendix I GAO’s Group of Experts on Assessing the Academic 

Knowledge of Students with Limited English 

Proficiency 53 

Appendix II Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for Student 

Groups 55 

Appendix III Percentage of Districts Making AYP Goals for 

Mathematics for Students with Limited English 

Proficiency 57 

Appendix IV Proficiency Scores on Mathematics Tests for All 

Students and Students with Limited English 

Proficiency 58 

Page i GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix V Enhanced Assessment Consortia Participation 60 

Appendix VI English Language Proficiency Assessments Used 

in the 2005-2006 School Year, by State 61 

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Education 63 

Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments 68 

Related GAO Products 69 

Tables 

Table 1: Selected Provisions from Title I of NCLBA 8 

Table 2: Selected Provisions from Title III of NCLBA 10 

Table 3: Examples of English Language Proficiency and Language 

Arts Standards for a Fifth-Grade Student 10 

Table 4: Percentage of Elementary Students Scoring at the 

Proficient Level or Above on State Mathematics 

Assessment for Selected Student Groups, School Year 

2003-2004 19

Table 5: Examples of Issues Relating to Assessing Students with 

Limited English Proficiency Raised in Education’s Peer 

Review Reports 28 

Table 6: Most Frequently Cited Accommodations in 42 States 31 

Figures 

Figure 1: NCLBA’s Requirements for Students with Limited English 

Proficiency under Title I and Title III 11 

Figure 2: School Year 2003-2004 Comparison of Percentage of 

Students with Limited English Proficiency Who Achieved 

Proficient Scores in Language Arts and Mathematics with 

State-Established Progress Goals 15 

Page ii GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Figure 3: Percentage of Districts in 18 Selected States Reporting 

Adequate Yearly Progress Results in School Year 2003-

2004 for Students with Limited English Proficiency 17 

Figure 4: Use of Native Language and Alternate Assessments for 

Students with Limited English Proficiency 34 

Figure 5: Type of English Language Proficiency Assessment 

Administered in 2005–2006 School Year 38 

Figure 6: Movement of Students In and Out of Limited English 

Proficient Student Group and Other Student Groups 47 

Figure 7: Process for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for a 

Student Group 56 

Abbreviations 

AYP adequate yearly progress 

CELLA Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment 

ELDA English Language Development Assessment 

ESL English as a second language 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

MWAC Mountain West Assessment Consortium 

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act

PA EAG Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant 

SCASS State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards 

WIDA World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment

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-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

July 26, 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 children with limited English proficiency were 

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

representing about 10 percent of the total school population. They speak 

over 400 languages, with almost 80 percent of students with limited 

English proficiency speaking Spanish. These students have difficulties in 

speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English that interfere with 

their ability to successfully participate in school. Because of these 

language barriers, obtaining information on the academic knowledge of 

these students from an assessment that is valid and reliable (i.e., it 

measures what it is designed to measure in a consistent manner) presents 

challenges. As a result, students with limited English proficiency have 

historically been excluded from statewide assessments, leaving states and 

districts with little information about how these students are performing 

academically. 

In 1994, the enactment of the Improving America’s Schools Act required 

states to assess these students, to the extent practicable, in the manner 

most likely to yield accurate information about their academic knowledge. 

Subsequently, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

Page 1 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
(NCLBA) with the goal of increasing academic achievement and closing 

achievement gaps among different student groups. Specifically, NCLBA 

required states to demonstrate that all students have reached the 

“proficient” level on a state’s language arts and mathematics assessments 

by 2014. States are obligated to demonstrate “adequate yearly progress” 

toward this goal each year—that is, they must show that increasing 

percentages of students are reaching proficient achievement levels over 

time. Students with limited English proficiency, along with other targeted 

student groups, must separately meet the same academic progress goals as 

other students. Further, NCLBA required states to annually assess the 

English proficiency of these students and to demonstrate that they are 

making progress in becoming proficient in English. Because these 

students are defined by a temporary characteristic—unlike other student 

groups targeted in NCLBA—once a state determines that students with 

limited English proficiency have attained English proficiency, they are no

longer included in the group of students with limited English proficiency,

although Education has given states some flexibility in this area. 

Given your interest in the academic achievement of these students and the 

validity and reliability of assessments used to measure their performance, 

we are providing information on (1) the extent to which students with 

limited English proficiency are meeting adequate yearly progress goals and 

what selected states and districts are doing to support the improved 

academic performance of these students, (2) what states have done to 

ensure that results from language arts and mathematics assessments are 

valid and reliable for students with limited English proficiency, (3) how 

states are assessing English proficiency and what they are doing to 

address the validity and reliability of these assessment results, and (4) how 

the Department of Education (Education) is supporting states’ efforts to 

meet NCLBA’s assessment requirements for these students. 

To determine the extent to which students with limited English 

proficiency are meeting adequate yearly progress goals, we collected 

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

of Columbia. We obtained the majority of our data from state Web sites 

and, when necessary, contacted state officials for these data. Three states

did not publish data in a format that allowed us to determine if students 

with limited English proficiency had met the state’s adequate yearly 

progress goals. We also collected additional achievement data for 2003-

2004 at the school district level from 18 states. We chose a nonrandom 

sample of states with the largest percentage of the national population of

students with limited English proficiency, states with the largest 

percentage increases in these students between 1990 and 2000, and 

Page 2 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
included at least 2 states from each region represented by Education’s 

regional education laboratories (with the exception of one region that 

included only one state). When district-level achievement data for school 

year 2003-2004 were not available on a state’s Web site or a state had more 

than 500 districts, we requested the data directly from state officials; 

2 states did not respond to our request for these data. We determined that 

the state and district data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We 

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

and Texas) to collect detailed information from state and district officials 

on their assessment practices, efforts to ensure the validity and reliability 

of their assessments for students with limited English proficiency, and 

their approaches to improve the performance of these students. These 

5 states had relatively large percentages of students with limited English 

proficiency or had experienced large increases in their populations of 

these students. In addition, we selected these particular states to ensure 

variation in geography, types of English language proficiency tests used, 

and use of different approaches to assessing the content knowledge of this 

student group. To obtain information on the assessments used by other 

states, we reviewed accountability workbooks and other documents that 

states submit to Education, available reports from state monitoring visits 

conducted by Education, and available peer review reports from 38 states 

on their assessment and accountability systems. In addition to studying 

5 states, we directly contacted officials in 28 states to confirm what 

English language proficiency assessment they planned to administer in 

2005–2006 and to discuss what guidance Education had provided 

regarding these assessments. We also interviewed officials from major test 

development companies, from state consortia that are developing English

language proficiency assessments, and from Education. To assess state 

efforts to ensure the validity and reliability of their assessments, we 

reviewed national assessment standards developed by professional 

organizations and convened a group of experts to discuss states’ efforts to 

develop and implement valid and reliable academic assessments for 

students with limited English proficiency (see app. I for more information 

about these experts). Finally, we obtained information from the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia on their use of native language assessments 

using a short e-mail survey. We conducted our review between June 2005 

and June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

In school year 2003-2004, state data showed that the percentage of 

students with limited English proficiency scoring proficient on a state’s 

language arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state’s annual

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
progress goals in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained

data. To help these students progress academically, state and district 

officials in the 5 states we visited reported using a variety of strategies, 

including training teachers to incorporate language development into 

academic classes. Further, our review of data 49 states submitted to 

Education showed that the performance of students with limited English 

proficiency on states’ mathematics assessments for elementary school 

students was lower than that of the total student population in all of these 

states but 1. Although the student groups are not mutually exclusive, in 

most of the 49 states, the performance of students with limited English 

proficiency was generally lower than that of other groups, such as 

economically disadvantaged students. Factors other than student 

academic knowledge, however, can influence whether states and districts 

meet their academic progress goals for students with limited English 

proficiency, such as how a state establishes its annual progress goals. To

support improved academic progress for these students, district and state 

officials we spoke with in our 5 study states reported using strategies 

similar to those considered good practices for all students. In particular, 

they cited providing teacher training focused on these students, having 

school leadership focused on their needs and using data to target 

interventions as key to the success of these students. 

For assessments of academic knowledge in language arts and 

mathematics, we found that our 5 study states have taken some steps to 

address the specific challenges associated with assessing students with 

limited English proficiency. Although officials in these states reported 

taking steps to follow generally accepted test development procedures to 

ensure the validity and reliability of results from these assessments for the 

general student population, these assessments may not provide valid

results for students with limited English proficiency. Our group of experts 

expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing these students 

in a valid and reliable manner, noting that states are not taking all the

critical steps needed to do so. Although states have been required to 

include these students in their assessments since 1994, Education’s recent

peer reviews of 38 states cited 25 for not providing sufficient evidence on

the validity or reliability of results for students with limited English 

proficiency. In 1 state, for example, procedures to develop test questions 

did not include an adequate check for language biases. To increase the 

validity and reliability of assessment results for this population, most 

states offered accommodations, such as offering extra time to complete 

the test and using a bilingual dictionary. While most states offered some 

accommodations, our experts indicated that research is lacking on what 

specific accommodations are appropriate for students with limited English 

Page 4 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
proficiency. Our survey of states and review of state documents found that 

16 states used statewide native language assessments for some grades and

13 states used statewide alternate assessments (such as portfolios of 

classroom work) in 2005 to better accommodate certain students with 

limited English proficiency. While such assessments may improve the 

validity of test scores, our group of experts noted that developing native 

language and alternate assessments requires resources and expertise that 

not all states have. Further, our experts told us that native language

assessments may not provide valid results for students who are not 

receiving instruction in their native language. In addition, developing 

assessments in all languages spoken by students with limited English 

proficiency would likely not be practicable for most states. 

With respect to English language proficiency assessments, many states are

still in the preliminary phases of developing and administering new 

assessments to measure students’ progress in learning English, as required 

by NCLBA; as a result, complete information on the validity and reliability 

of these assessments is not yet available. To assess these students in the 

2005-2006 school year, 22 states used new assessments developed by one 

of four state consortia; 8 states used customized, off-the-shelf assessments 

offered by testing companies; 14 states used off-the-shelf assessments; and 

7 states used state-developed assessments. While a few states already had 

the required English language proficiency assessments in place, others will 

be administering these assessments for the first time in 2006; as a result, 

states and test developers are still collecting evidence to document the 

validity and reliability of the results for most of these tests. An Educationfunded study by a national education research organization reviewed the 

available documentation for the English language proficiency assessments

used by 33 states in the 2005-2006 school year and found insufficient 

documentation on the validity and reliability of results from these 

assessments. 

Education has offered states support and technical assistance in a variety 

of ways to help them appropriately assess students with limited English 

proficiency, such as providing training, conducting peer reviews of states’

academic assessments, and providing flexibility in assessing these 

students. However, Education has issued little written guidance to states 

on developing English language proficiency assessments that meet 

NCLBA’s requirements and on tracking the progress of students in 

acquiring English. Officials in about one-third of the 33 states we visited or

contacted told us that they were uncertain about Education’s requirements 

for the new English language proficiency assessments and that they 

wanted more guidance. In addition, our group of experts reported that 

Page 5 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
some states need more assistance to develop language arts and 

mathematics assessments that provide valid measures of the academic 

knowledge of this group of students. To support states’ efforts to 

incorporate these students into their accountability systems for academic 

performance, Education has offered states some flexibilities in how they 

track progress goals for these students. For example, students who have 

been in the United States for less than 1 year do not have to be assessed 

for language arts. However, several state and district officials in the 

5 states we studied told us that additional flexibility, such as excluding 

students from testing for a longer period, is needed to ensure that 

adequate yearly progress measures accurately track the academic progress 

of these students. 

To help states improve their assessment of students with limited English 

proficiency, we are recommending that the Secretary of Education 

(1) support additional research on accommodations, (2) identify and 

provide additional technical support states need to ensure the validity and

reliability of academic assessments for these students, (3) publish more 

detailed guidance on assessing the English language proficiency of these 

students, and (4) explore ways to provide additional flexibility with 

respect to measuring annual progress for these students. In its comments,

Education generally agreed with our recommendations. 

Students with limited English proficiency are a diverse and complex 

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

educational needs and include refugees with little formal schooling and 

students who are literate in their native languages. Accurately assessing 

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

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

student did not know the answer or misunderstood the question because 

of language barriers. 

Background 

Several approaches are available to allow students to demonstrate their 

academic knowledge while they are becoming proficient in English, 

although each poses challenges. First, a state can offer assessments in a 

student’s native language. However, vocabulary in English is not 

necessarily equivalent in difficulty to the vocabulary in another language. 

As a result, a test translated from English may not have the same level of

difficulty as the English version. If a state chooses to develop a completely

different test in another language instead of translating the English 

version, the assessment should measure the same standards and reflect 

the same level of difficulty as the English version of the test to ensure its 

Page 6 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
validity. Second, states can also offer accommodations, such as providing 

extra time to take a test, allowing the use of a bilingual dictionary, reading 

test directions aloud in a student’s native language, or administering the 

test in a less distracting environment. Accommodations alter the way a 

regular assessment is administered, with the goal of minimizing the 

language impediments faced by students with limited English proficiency; 

they are intended to level the playing field without providing an unfair 

advantage to these students. Finally, states can use alternate assessments 

that measure the same things as the regular assessment while minimizing 

the language burden placed on the student. For example, an alternate 

assessment can be a traditional standardized test that uses simplified 

English or relies more on pictures and diagrams. It can also be a portfolio 

of a student’s class work that demonstrates academic knowledge. In either 

case, studies would be needed to demonstrate that the alternate 

assessment is equivalent to the regular assessment. 

NCLBA Requirements Title I of NCLBA seeks to ensure that all children have a fair and equal

opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and become proficient in 

academic subjects. It requires states to administer tests in language arts 

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

the primary means of determining the annual performance of states, 

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

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

demonstrated his or her knowledge of the academic content represented 

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

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

NCLBA also requires that students with limited English proficiency receive 

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

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

knowledge. Somewhat similar versions of these provisions, such as 

reporting testing results for different student groups, had been included in

legislation enacted in 1994. One new NCLBA requirement was for states to 

annually assess the English language proficiency of students identified as 

having limited English proficiency. Table 1 summarizes some key Title I

provisions from NCLBA. 

Page 7 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Table 1: Selected Provisions from Title I of NCLBA 

State academic assessments Beginning in the 2005–2006 school year, states must implement annual, high-quality state 

assessments in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school.a

 These 

assessments must be aligned with challenging state academic standards and must be 

“consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards for such 

assessments” and used in ways that are valid and reliable. States must provide for the 

participation of all students, including those with limited English proficiency. 

Academic assessment

provisions related to students

with limited English proficiency 

Students with limited English proficiency are to be assessed in a valid and reliable manner. In 

addition, they must be provided with reasonable accommodations and be assessed, to the 

extent practicable, “in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data” on their

academic knowledge. In addition, for language arts, students who have been in U.S. schools for 

3 years or more generally must be assessed in English. 

Adequate yearly progress States must set annual goals that lead to all students achieving proficiency in language arts and 

mathematics by 2014. To be deemed as having made adequate yearly progress for a given year, 

each district and school must show that the requisite percentage of each designated student 

group, as well as the student population as a whole, met the state proficiency goal (that is, the 

percentage of students who have achieved the proficient level on the state’s assessments). 

Schools must also show that at least 95 percent of students in each designated student group 

participated in these assessments. Further, schools must also demonstrate that they have met 

state targets on other academic indicators—graduation rates in high school or attendance or 

other measures in elementary and middle schools. Alternatively, a district or school can make 

adequate yearly progress through the “safe harbor” provision, if the percentage of students in a 

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

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

Actions when adequate yearly

progress not achieved

Schools that receive funding under Title I of NCLBA must take specified actions if they do not 

meet state progress goals. Specifically, schools that do not make adequate yearly progress for 

2 consecutive years or more are identified for improvement and must, among other things, offer 

parents an opportunity to transfer students to another school and provide supplemental services 

(e.g., tutoring). Those that miss the annual goals for additional years are identified for successive 

stages of intervention, including corrective action and restructuring. 

State English language

proficiency assessments 

States must annually assess the English language proficiency of all students with limited English 

proficiency, measuring students’ oral language, reading, and writing skills in English. 

Source: Pub. L. No. 107-110. 

a

Beginning in school year 2007-2008, states must implement similar assessments in science. 

Accurately assessing the academic knowledge of students with limited 

English proficiency has become more critical because NCLBA designated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress of these designated groups. To be deemed as having made 

adequate yearly progress, generally each district and school must show 

Page 8 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
that each of these groups met the state proficiency goal (that is, the 

percentage of students who have achieved the proficient level on the 

state’s assessments) and that at least 95 percent of students in each 

designated group participated in these assessments. 

Although NCLBA placed many new requirements on states, states have 

broad discretion in many key areas. States establish their academic 

content standards and then develop their own tests to measure the 

academic content students are taught in school. States also set their own 

standards for what constitutes proficiency on these assessments. In 

addition, states set their own annual progress goals for the percentage of

students achieving proficiency, using guidelines outlined in NCLBA.1

Title III of NCLBA focuses specifically on students with limited English 

proficiency, with the purpose of ensuring that these students attain 

English proficiency and meet the same academic content standards all 

students are expected to meet. This title established new requirements 

intended to hold states and districts accountable for student progress in 

attaining English proficiency. It requires states to establish goals to 

demonstrate, among other things, annual increases in (1) students making 

progress in learning English and (2) students attaining English proficiency.

Specifically, states must establish English language proficiency standards

that are aligned with a state’s academic content standards. The purpose of 

these alignment requirements is to ensure that students are acquiring the

academic language they will need to successfully participate in the 

classroom. Education also requires that a state’s English language 

proficiency assessment be aligned to its English language proficiency 

standards. While NCLBA requires states to administer academic 

assessments to students in specific grades, it requires states to administer 

an annual English language proficiency assessment to all students with 

limited English proficiency, from kindergarten to grade 12. See table 2 for 

summary of key Title III provisions. 

 1

For more information on differences in state approaches to meeting NCLBA requirements, 

see GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process for 

Tracking States’ Implementation of Key Provisions, GAO-04-734 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.

30, 2004). 

Page 9 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Table 2: Selected Provisions from Title III of NCLBA 

State English language proficiency

standards 

States must establish English language proficiency standards that are aligned with the 

state’s challenging academic content standards. 

Tracking student progress in learning 

English 

States must establish objectives for improving students’ English proficiency in four areas:

speaking, listening, reading, and writing.a

 States receiving grants under Title III must 

establish annual goals for increasing and measuring the progress of students with limited

English proficiency in (1) learning English, (2) attaining English proficiency, and 

(3) meeting adequate yearly progress goals in attaining academic proficiency outlined in

Title I. 

Actions when annual goals for students

with limited English proficiency not met 

Districts that receive funding under Title III are subject to certain consequences if they do 

not meet a state’s annual Title III goals. If a district does not meet the goals for 

2 consecutive years, it must develop an improvement plan that addresses the factors 

that prevented the district from meeting the goals. If a district does not meet the goals for

4 consecutive years, it must modify its curriculum and method of instruction or the state 

must determine whether to continue to fund the district and require the district to replace 

all personnel related to the district’s inability to meet the goals. 

Source: Pub. L. No. 107-110. 

a

Title I refers to oral language skills, which encompass listening and speaking. 

Language arts standards define the academic skills a student is expected 

to master, while English language proficiency standards define progressive 

levels of competence in the acquisition of English necessary to participate 

successfully in the classroom. Examples of standards for English language 

proficiency and language arts are provided in table 3. 

Table 3: Examples of English Language Proficiency and Language Arts Standards

for a Fifth-Grade Student

English language proficiency standards Language arts standards

The student can comprehend reading 

passages written in familiar or short 

sentence patterns and verbalize some of 

the main points of the passage. 

The student can independently read and 

comprehend a grade-level appropriate text 

and write a short essay describing the main 

idea of the text. 

The student can use acquired knowledge 

of the English language to learn and 

understand new vocabulary in context. 

The student can apply knowledge of 

reading strategies to comprehend the text 

of the next higher level of difficulty. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, “Final Non-Regulatory Guidance on the Title III State Formula Grant Program—Standards, 

Assessments and Accountability,” February 2003. 

Under NCLBA, states, districts, and schools have two sets of 

responsibilities for students with limited English proficiency. As shown in

figure 1, they are responsible for ensuring that these students make 

progress in learning English under Title III and that they become proficient 

in language arts and mathematics under Title I. Beginning with the 2004-

2005 school year, Education is required to annually review whether states 

have made adequate yearly progress (as defined by the state) for each of 

Page 10 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
the student groups and have met their objectives for increasing the 

number or percentage of students who become proficient in English. 

Figure 1: NCLBA’s Requirements for Students with Limited English Proficiency

under Title I and Title III 

English language 

proficiency 

standards

Annual yearly 

progress goals 

Academic achievement 

standards 

Academic content 

assessments 

Academic content 

standards 

Increase English 

language 

proficiency and 

academic 

achievement 

English language 

proficiency 

assessments

Annual targets for 

increasing students who 

are (1) making progress

learning English and (2) 

becoming proficient in 

English 

Title I requirements Title III requirements

Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, “Final Non-Regulatory Guidance on the Title III State Formula Grant 

Program—Standards, Assessments and Accountability, February 2003.”

Test Development NCLBA’s emphasis on validity and reliability reflects the fact that these 

concepts are among the most important in test development. Validity 

refers to whether the test measures what it is intended to measure. 

Reliability refers to whether or not a test yields consistent results across 

time and location and among different sections of the test. A test cannot 

be considered valid if it is unreliable. The Standards for Educational and 

Psychological Testing provide universally accepted guidance for the 

development and evaluation of high-quality, psychometrically sound 

assessments.

2

 They outline specific standards to be considered when 

assessing individuals with limited English proficiency, including 

(1) determining when language differences produce threats to the validity 

and reliability of test results, (2) providing information on how to use and 

interpret results when tests are used with linguistically diverse individuals, 

 2

These standards are sponsored and published jointly by the American Educational 

Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council 

on Measurement in Education. 

Page 11 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
and (3) collecting the same evidence to support claims of validity for each

linguistic subgroup as was collected for the population as a whole. 

Test development begins with determining the purpose of the test and the 

content to be measured by the test. NCLBA outlines several purposes of 

statewide assessments, including determining the yearly performance of 

schools and districts, interpreting individual student academic needs, and 

tracking the achievement of several groups of students. NCLBA requires 

that the content of statewide assessments reflects state standards in 

language arts and mathematics, but the specific skills measured can vary 

from state to state. For example, a language arts assessment could 

measure a student’s knowledge of vocabulary or ability to write a 

persuasive essay. Variations in purpose and content affect test design, as 

well as the analyses necessary to determine validity and reliability. 

After determining the purpose and content of the test, developers create 

test specifications, which delineate the format of the questions and 

responses, as well as the scoring procedures. Specifications may also 

indicate additional information, such as the intended difficulty of 

questions, the student population that will take the test, and the 

procedures for administering the test. These specifications subsequently 

guide the development of individual test questions. The quality of the 

questions is usually ascertained through review by knowledgeable 

educators and statistical analyses based on a field test of a sample of 

students—ideally the sample is representative of the overall target student

population so the results will reflect how the questions will function when 

the test is administered to the population. These reviews typically evaluate

a question’s quality, clarity, lack of ambiguity, and sometimes its 

sensitivity to gender or cultural issues; they are intended to ensure that 

differences in student performance are related to differences in student 

knowledge rather than other factors, such as unnecessarily complex 

language. Once the quality has been established, developers assemble 

questions into a test that meets the requirements of the test specifications. 

Developers often review tests after development to ensure that they 

continue to produce accurate results. 

Education’s 

Responsibilities 

Education has responsibility for general oversight of Titles I and III of 

NCLBA. The department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

oversees states’ implementation of Title I requirements with respect to 

academic assessments and making adequate progress toward achieving 

academic proficiency for all students by 2014. Education’s Office of 

English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic 

Page 12 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students oversees states’ Title 

III responsibilities, which include administering annual English language 

proficiency assessments to students with limited English proficiency and 

demonstrating student progress in attaining English language proficiency.

In school year 2003-2004, the percentage of students with limited English 

proficiency reported by states as scoring proficient on a state’s language 

arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state’s annual progress 

goals (established for all students) in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for 

which we obtained data.

3

 Further, data from state mathematics tests 

showed that these students were generally achieving lower rates of 

academic proficiency than the total student population. However, factors 

other than student academic performance can influence whether a state 

meets its progress goals, such as which students a state includes in the 

limited English proficient group and how a state establishes its annual 

progress goals. Officials in our study states reported using several 

common approaches, including providing teacher training specific to the 

needs of limited English proficient students and using data to guide 

instruction and identify areas for improvement. 

Students with Limited 

English Proficiency 

Performed below 

Progress Goals in 

2004 in Two-Thirds of 

States, but States We

Studied Are Working 

to Improve Student 

Academic 

Performance 

 3

We included the District of Columbia in our 48-state total. 

Page 13 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
In nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained data, state data

showed that the percentage of students with limited English proficiency 

scoring proficient on language arts and mathematics tests was below the 

annual progress goal set by the state for school year 2003-2004. Students 

with limited English proficiency met academic progress goals in language 

arts and mathematics in 17 states.4

 In 31 states, state data indicated that 

these students missed the goals either for language arts or for both 

language arts and mathematics (see fig. 2). In 21 states, the percentage of 

proficient students in this group was below both the mathematics and the 

language arts proficiency goals. See appendix II for information on how 

adequate yearly progress measures are calculated. 

In Almost Two-Thirds of 

States, the Percentage of 

Students with Limited 

English Proficiency 

Achieving Proficient 

Scores Was Below the 

State’s Annual Progress 

Goals 

 4

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

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

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

on another academic indicator. 

Page 14 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Figure 2: School Year 2003-2004 Comparison of Percentage of Students with Limited English Proficiency Who Achieved

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

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak.

Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

W.Va. Va.

Ky.

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

S.C.

Tenn.

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

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

State did not provide data (3)

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

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

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

progress goals established by the state. 

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

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

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

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

Page 15 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
All of the states on the map where the proficiency percentage for students with limited English 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah. 

We reported 2004–2005 school year data for Oklahoma, New Mexico and Utah because we could not 

obtain data for the 2003-2004 school year. Data from Iowa, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are for 

the 2002-2004 school years. 

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

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

We also obtained additional data from 18 states to determine whether 

districts were meeting annual progress goals for students with limited 

English proficiency in school year 2003-2004.5

 In 14 of the 18 states, 

however, we found that less than 40 percent of the districts in each state 

reported separate results for this group of students (see fig. 3).6

 Districts 

only have to report progress results for a student group if a minimum 

number of students are included in the group.7

 In Nebraska, for example, 

only 4 percent of districts reported progress goals for students with 

limited English proficiency. Except for Florida, Hawaii, and Nevada, less 

than half of the districts in each state reported separate results for this 

group of students. Even when districts do not have to report on students 

with limited English proficiency, however, the test scores for these 

students are included in the state’s overall progress measures. 

 5

We requested district data from 20 states, and 18 states responded to our request. 

6

The number of districts reporting results for these students may increase in the future,

since states were required to assess students in more grades beginning with the 2005–2006 

school year. Testing in more grades will likely increase the number of districts meeting the 

minimum number of limited English proficient students that will be required to separately 

report proficiency results. 

7

States determine the minimum number of students in a student group, usually between 

25 and 45 students. 

Page 16 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Figure 3: Percentage of Districts in 18 Selected States Reporting Adequate Yearly 

Progress Results in School Year 2003-2004 for Students with Limited English

Proficiency 

0

2

4

6

8

10

60% or above

20%−

40%−59%

39%

Under 20%

Number of states

Percentage of districts

Source: GAO analysis of district report cards and district data provided by state officials.

Notes: If a district reported annual progress results for students with limited English proficiency in 

either language arts proficiency or mathematics proficiency, or both, we considered that the district 

reported adequate yearly progress results for the student group. 

Hawaii has only one school district. Since the state reported separate results for students with limited 

English proficiency, it has been included as 100 percent of districts reporting separate results for 

these students.

For those districts that reported results for students with limited English 

proficiency, district-level data showed that most districts in 13 of the 

18 states met their mathematics progress goals for these students. For 

example, 67 percent of reporting districts in Nebraska and 99 percent of 

reporting districts in Texas met the state’s goals. In 4 states, less than half

of the districts reporting results for these students met the state 

mathematics progress goals. Specifically, 26 percent of Alaska districts, 

33 percent of Nevada districts, 48 percent of Oregon districts, and 

48 percent of Florida districts met these goals. (See app. III for results 

from each of the 18 states.) 

In addition to looking at whether students with limited English proficiency 

met annual progress goals at the state and district level, we also examined 

Page 17 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
achievement levels on state assessments for this group of students 

compared with the total student population (which also includes students 

with limited English proficiency). Looking at mathematics results reported 

by 49 states to Education, for example, in all but one state, we found that a 

lower percentage of students with limited English proficiency at the 

elementary school level achieved proficient scores, compared to the total 

student population in school year 2003-2004 (see app. IV for the results 

reported by the 49 states). Twenty-seven states reported that the total 

student population outperformed students with limited English 

proficiency by 20 percentage points or more. The differences among 

groups in the percentage of students achieving proficient scores varied 

across states. South Dakota, for example, reported a large achievement 

gap, with 37 percent of limited English proficient students scoring at the 

proficient level, compared to 78 percent for the entire student population. 

The gap was less pronounced in Texas, where 75 percent of students with 

limited English proficiency achieved proficient scores on the mathematics 

assessment, while 85 percent of the total student population did. In 

Louisiana, these students performed about the same as the total student 

population, with 58 percent of limited English proficient students scoring 

at the proficient level on the elementary mathematics assessment, 

compared to 57 percent of the total student population. 

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

English proficiency achieved proficient test scores than other selected 

student groups (see table 4). All of the 49 states reported that these 

students achieved lower rates of proficiency than white students.8

 The 

performance of limited English proficient students relative to the other 

student groups varied. In 37 states, for example, economically 

disadvantaged students outperformed students with limited English 

proficiency, while students with disabilities outperformed these students 

in 14 states. In 12 states, all the selected student groups outperformed 

students with limited English proficiency. 

 8

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

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

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

be included in both groups. 

Page 18 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Table 4: Percentage of Elementary Students Scoring at the Proficient Level or Above on State Mathematics Assessment for 

Selected Student Groups, School Year 2003-2004 

States 

Students with

Limited English 

Proficiency 

Students with

Disabilities

AfricanAmericanEconomically

Disadvantaged Hispanic White

Ala. 53 31 58 62 61 81

Alaska 40 36 50 50 63 77

Ariz.a32 31 46 data not available 44 72

Ark.b49 24 38 53 56 74

Calif. 33 24 28 33 33 61

Colo.a76 61 74 79 79 94

Conn. 47 49 69 61 61 88

Del.a70 47 61 67 74 87

D.C. 34 14 49 48 57 89

Fla. 48 39 44 52 60 74

Ga. 53 46 65 66 67 84

Hawaiia9 6 19 18 16 36

Idaho 62 55 69 76 68 87

Ill.a53 57 54 61 64 89

Ind.a 47 40 54 60 60 75

Iowa 49 39 46 62 56 80

Kans. 58 67 61 70 65 84

Ky.a32 29 28 36 38 51

La. 58 30 40 48 62 74

Maine 10 13 15 20 20 33

Md. 39 39 52 51 59 83

Mass. 22 20 20 22 19 49

Mich. 59 42 51 57 58 77

Minn.a38 45 39 52 45 77

Miss. 79 61 69 72 87 91

Mo. 30 24 24 28 29 45

Mont. 15 22 32 33 36 49

Nebr. 73 65 72 79 80 90

Nev.a22 22 27 32 32 57

N.H.a57 61 72 71 67 85

N.J. 47 46 50 54 59 81

Page 19 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
States 

Students with

Limited English 

Proficiency 

Students with

Disabilities

AfricanAmericanEconomically

Disadvantaged Hispanic White

N.Mex. 36 31 50 47 49 72

N.C. 86 75 88 89 90 >95

N.Dak. 30 38 45 52 47 68

Ohio 48 38 39 48 51 72

Okla.a41 23 38 46 47 61

Oreg.a61 57 71 73 63 86

Pa.a34 27 30 42 38 70

R.I. 23 34 32 36 31 60

S.C. 16 16 19 22 24 49

S.Dak. 37 48 56 65 62 83

Tex. 75 76 75 80 81 93

Utah 53 43 56 71 52 78

Vt. 67 37 51 58 data not available 73

Va.a84 74 77 79 84 92

Wash. 27 29 38 44 39 66

W.Va. 68 33 53 64 68 70

Wisc. 50 51 45 56 53 80

Wyo. 15 21 25 29 24 42

Number of states where students 

with limited English proficiency had 

lower proficiency levels than this 

group (bolded numbers) 

14 28 37 41 49

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2003-04 school year. 

Notes: Bolded numbers indicate when the percentage of students in a group achieving proficient 

scores is greater than the percentage of students with limited English proficiency achieving proficient

scores. 

Student groups are not mutually exclusive, so that results for a student who is both Hispanic and 

economically disadvantaged appear in both groups. 

New York and Tennessee did not provide assessment data in their State Consolidated Performance 

Reports for the 2003-2004 school year. 

a

Most states reported assessment data for students in the fourth grade. States marked with this 

superscript reported on some other grade at the elementary school level, usually either third grade or 

fifth grade. 

b

The percentages for Arkansas do not include those students with limited English proficiency or 

students with disabilities who were considered proficient based on the state’s portfolio assessment. 

Page 20 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Factors beyond student performance can influence the number of states, 

districts, and schools meeting progress goals for students with limited 

English proficiency. One factor that can affect a state or district’s ability to 

meet progress goals for this student group is the criteria states use to 

determine which students are counted as limited English proficient. Some 

states define limited English proficiency so that students may be more 

likely to stay in the group for a longer time, giving them more of an 

opportunity to develop the language skills necessary to demonstrate their 

academic knowledge on state academic assessments administered in 

English. On the basis of our review of state accountability plans, we found 

that some states removed students from the group after they have 

achieved proficiency on the state’s English language proficiency 

assessment, while other states continued to include these students until 

they met additional academic requirements, such as achieving proficient

scores on the state’s language arts assessment. A number of states 

measured adequate yearly progress for students with limited English 

proficiency by including test scores for students for a set period of time 

after they were considered proficient in English, following Education’s 

policy announcement in February 2004 allowing such an approach. 

Factors beyond Student 

Performance Influence 

Progress Measures 

Reported by States 

How rigorously a state defines the proficient level of academic 

achievement can also influence the ability of states, districts, and schools 

to meet their progress goals. States with less rigorous definitions of 

proficiency are more likely to meet their progress goals for students with 

limited English proficiency or any other student group than states with 

more stringent definitions. Comparing the performance of students from 

different states on a nationally administered assessment suggests that 

states differ in how rigorously they define proficiency. For example, 

eighth-grade students in Colorado and Missouri achieved somewhat 

similar scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 

mathematics in 2003.

9

 Specifically, 34 percent of Colorado students scored 

proficient or above on this national assessment compared to 28 percent of

Missouri students. On their own state assessments in 2003, however, 

67 percent of Colorado students scored proficient or above, compared to 

 9

Under NCLBA, states are required to participate in the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress for reading and mathematics assessments in grades four and eight. 

The results from these assessments provide a national measure of student achievement and 

serve as confirmatory evidence about student achievement on state tests. 

Page 21 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
just 21 percent in Missouri.10 These results may reflect, among other things,

a difference in the level of rigor in the tests administered by these states. 

However, they may also be due in part to differences in what the national

test measures versus what each of the state tests measure. 

The likelihood of a state, district, or school meeting its annual progress 

goals also depends, in part, on the proficiency levels of its students when 

NCBLA was enacted, as well as how the state sets its annual goals. States

vary significantly in the percentage of students scoring at the proficient 

level on their academic assessments, so that states with lower proficiency

levels must, on average, establish larger annual increases in proficiency 

levels to meet the 2014 goal. Some states planned for large increases every

2 to 3 years, while others set smaller annual increases. States that 

established smaller annual increases in their initial proficiency goals may 

be more likely to meet their progress goals at this time, compared with 

states that set larger annual increases. 

The use of statistical procedures, such as confidence intervals, can also 

affect whether a state, district, or school meets its progress goals. 

Education officials said that states use such procedures to improve the 

reliability of determinations about the performance of districts. According 

to some researchers, such methods may improve the validity of results 

because they help to account for the effect of small group sizes and yearto-year changes in student populations.11 Most states currently use some 

type of confidence interval to determine if a state or district has met its 

progress goals, according to the Center on Education Policy.

12 A 

confidence interval establishes a range of proficiency levels around a 

 10Example taken from Robert L. Linn, “CRESST Policy Brief 8: Fixing the NCLB 

Accountability System,” Policy Brief of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, 

Standards, and Student Testing, Summer 2005. 

11Theodore Coladarci, Gallup Goes to School: The Importance of Confidence Intervals for

Evaluating “Adequate Yearly Progress” in Small Schools, the Rural School and 

Community Trust Policy Brief, Oct. 2003, and Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Steiger,

“Volatility in School Test Scores: Implications for Test-Based Accountability Systems,” in 

Diane Ravitch, ed., Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2002, pp. 235-283. Washington, 

D.C.: Brookings Institution. 

12Center on Education Policy, “From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child

Left Behind Act,” March 2006. 

Page 22 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
state’s annual progress goal.13 If the percentage of students with limited 

English proficiency scoring proficient on a state’s academic assessments 

falls within that range, that group has made the annual progress goal. 

States and Districts We

Visited Have Taken Steps 

to Improve Performance of 

Students with Limited 

English Proficiency 

To help students with limited English proficiency progress academically,

state and district officials in our 5 study states reported using somewhat 

similar strategies, many of which are also considered good practices for all 

students. Among the key factors cited by state and district officials for 

their success in working with this group were 

• strong professional development focused on effective teaching 

strategies for students with limited English proficiency; 

• school or district leadership that focuses on the needs of these 

students, such as providing sufficient resources to meet those needs 

and establishing high academic standards for these students; 

• “data driven” decisions, such as using data strategically to identify 

students who are doing well and those who need more help, to identify 

effective instructional approaches, or to provide effective professional 

development; and 

• efforts to work with parents to support the academic progress of their 

children. 

These approaches are similar to those used by “blue ribbon” schools—

schools identified by Education as working successfully with all students 

to achieve strong academic outcomes. The qualities shared by these blue

ribbon schools include professional development related to classroom 

instruction, strong school leadership and a vision that emphasizes high 

academic expectations and academic success for all students, using data 

to target instructional approaches, and parental involvement. While many 

blue ribbon schools have a high percentage of disadvantaged students, 

including those with limited English proficiency, their common 

approaches help them achieve student outcomes that place them among 

the top 10 percent of all schools in the state or that demonstrate dramatic 

improvement. 

 13When using confidence intervals, upper and lower limits around a district’s or state’s 

percentage of proficient students are calculated, creating a range of values within which 

there is “confidence” the true value lies. For example, instead of saying that 72 percent of

students scored at the proficient level or above on a test, a confidence interval may show

that percentage to be between 66 and 78 percent, with 95 percent confidence. 

Page 23 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Officials in all 5 of our study states stressed the importance of providing 

teachers with the training they need to work effectively with students with 

limited English proficiency. For example, state officials in North Carolina 

told us that they are developing a statewide professional development 

program to train mainstream teachers to present academic content 

material so that it is more understandable to students with limited English 

proficiency and to incorporate language development while teaching 

subjects such as mathematics and science. In one rural North Carolina 

school district where students with limited English proficiency have only 

recently become a large presence, district officials commented that this 

kind of professional development has helped teachers become more 

comfortable with these students and given them useful strategies to work 

more effectively with them. 

In 4 of our study states, officials emphasized the need for strong school or

district leadership that focuses on the needs of students with limited 

English proficiency. For example, officials in a California school district 

with a high percentage of students with limited English proficiency told us 

that these students are a district priority and that significant resources are

devoted to programs for them. The district administration has instilled the 

attitude that students with limited English proficiency can meet high 

expectations and are the responsibility of all teachers. To help maintain 

the focus on these students, the district has created an English language 

development progress profile to help teachers track the progress of each 

student in acquiring English and meeting the state’s English language 

development standards. 

In addition, officials in 4 of our study states attributed their success in 

working with students with limited English proficiency to using data 

strategically, for example, to identify effective practices and guide 

instruction. At one California school we visited, officials reviewed test 

scores to identify areas needing improvement for different classes and 

different student groups and to identify effective practices. In addition, 

they reviewed test data for each student to identify areas of weakness. If 

test data showed that a student was having trouble with vocabulary, the 

teacher would work in class to build the student’s vocabulary. Similarly, 

officials in a New York school reported that they followed student test 

scores over 3 years to set goals for different student groups and identify 

areas in need of improvement. 

Officials in 3 states we visited also cited the importance of involving 

parents of students with limited English proficiency in their children’s 

education. In Nebraska, for example, a technical assistance agency

Page 24 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
implemented a family literacy program to help parents and their children 

improve their English, and also to involve parents in their children’s 

education. The program showed parents how they can help children with 

their homework and the importance of reading to their children in their 

native language to develop their basic language skills. At a New York 

middle school, officials told us that they use a parent coordinator to 

establish better communication with families, learn about issues at home 

that can affect the student’s academic performance, and help families 

obtain support services, if needed. 

For academic assessments in language arts and mathematics, officials in 

the 5 states we studied reported that they have taken some steps, such as 

reviewing test items to eliminate unnecessarily complex language, to

address the specific challenges associated with assessing students with 

limited English proficiency. However, Education recently reviewed the 

assessment documentation of 38 states and noted some concerns related 

to using these assessments for students with limited English proficiency. 

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

appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create assessments that 

produce valid and reliable results for students with limited English 

proficiency. To increase the validity and reliability of assessment results 

for this population, most states offered accommodations, such as 

providing extra time to complete the assessment and offering native 

language assessments. However, offering accommodations may or may 

not improve the validity of test results, as research on the appropriate use 

of accommodations for these students is lacking. In addition, native 

language assessments are not appropriate for all students with limited 

English proficiency and are difficult and expensive to develop. 

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

the specific challenges associated with assessing students with limited 

English proficiency in language arts and mathematics. Officials in 4 of 

these states reported following generally accepted test development 

procedures when developing their academic assessments, while a 

Nebraska official reported that the state expects districts to follow such 

procedures when developing their tests. Test development involves a 

structured process with specific steps; however, additional steps and 

special attention to language issues are required when developing a test 

that includes students with limited English proficiency to ensure that the 

results are valid and reliable for these students. As the Standards for 

Educational and Psychological Testing notes, for example, the test 

Selected States 

Considered Language 

Issues When 

Developing Academic 

Assessments, but 

Validity and 

Reliability Concerns 

Remain 

States Reported Efforts to 

Improve Validity of 

Assessment Results for 

Students with Limited 

English Proficiency 

Page 25 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
instructions or the response format may need to be modified to ensure 

that the test provides valid information about the skills of students with 

limited English proficiency. 

Officials in 2 states and at several testing companies mentioned that they

have been focusing more on the needs of these students in recent years. 

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

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

making assessments accessible to the widest possible range of students. 

This is done by ensuring, among other things, that instructions, forms, and 

questions are clear and not more linguistically complex than necessary. In

addition, officials in all 5 states we studied told us they included students 

with limited English proficiency in the field testing of assessments. North 

Carolina officials reported that they oversample for students with limited 

English proficiency to ensure that these students are adequately 

represented in the field tests. 

Another step officials in some states reported taking is assembling panels 

or committees to review test items for bias and testing data for bias 

related to a student’s English proficient status. For example, Texas and 

North Carolina officials reported creating review committees to ensure 

that test items are accessible to students with limited English proficiency. 

Specifically, when developing mathematics items, these states try to make 

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

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

measuring language proficiency. A mathematics word problem involving 

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

Officials in 4 of our study states told us they used a statistical approach to 

evaluate test items for bias against specific student groups, and three of 

these reported using it to detect bias related to students with limited 

English proficiency. However, this type of analysis can only be used when

a relatively large number of students in the specific group is taking the 

test. Members of our expert group recommended the use of this technique 

for states with a large enough number of students with limited English 

proficiency; however, one member noted that this technique may not be 

appropriate if a state’s population of students with limited English 

proficiency is diverse but is treated as homogenous in the analyses. 

Some of our study states also reported including experts on limited 

English proficiency or English as a second language (ESL) issues in the 

development and review of test items, although only 1 reported involving 

them in all aspects of test development. In North Carolina, for example, 

officials told us that ESL teachers and supervisors are involved in 

Page 26 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
reviewing all aspects of the test development process, including item 

writing, field testing, and operational testing. Some state officials also told 

us that they included education staff involved with students with limited 

English proficiency in the development of assessments. 

Both Education’s Peer 

Reviews and Our Group of 

Experts Raised Concerns 

Regarding State Efforts to 

Ensure Valid and Reliable 

Results 

Education’s recent NCLBA peer reviews of 38 states14 found that 25 did not 

provide sufficient evidence on the validity or reliability of results for 

students with limited English proficiency, although states have been 

required to include these students in their assessments since 1994.

15 For 

example, peer reviewers found that Alabama’s documentation did not 

include sufficient evidence on the selection process for committee 

members to review test items for bias, noting that no evidence was 

provided on whether representatives for students with limited English 

proficiency were included. In Idaho, peer reviewers commented that the

state did not report reliability data for student groups, including students 

with limited English proficiency. See table 5 for further examples. 

 14As of July 2006, Education had conducted peer reviews of 50 states and the District of 

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

time of our review. 

15States were given several years to meet the requirements of the Improving America’s 

School Act of 1994. 

Page 27 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Table 5: Examples of Issues Relating to Assessing Students with Limited English Proficiency Raised in Education’s Peer 

Review Reports 

Validity Reliability Accommodations

The state’s item development and review

procedures are inadequate to ensure that the

assessments do not reflect unfair irrelevant 

constructs. For example, there is no empirical 

evidence that the item review process is 

successful in removing barriers due to overly

complex language. Further, a statistical process to 

determine bias is evaluated only for gender and 

race/ethnicity; the state should consider using it to 

evaluate geographic and demographic diversity, 

such as students with limited English proficiency. 

The state did not provide 

any reliability data for 

each reported 

subpopulation. 

The state provides a reasonable list of 

accommodations, but does not distinguish among 

those that are allowable for students with disabilities, 

and those which are allowable for students with limited 

English proficiency. The state may wish to provide 

separate lists of accommodations to support the 

selection of appropriate accommodations that are 

aligned with instructional approaches for individual 

students. Further, although it appears that the state 

has a system in place for monitoring the selection of 

accommodations for students with disabilities, it does 

not for students with limited English proficiency. 

The state should conduct a bias review, especially 

for the common items and the alternate 

assessments for students with limited English 

proficiency and students with disabilities. 

The state does not 

routinely report subgroup 

reliability data.

The state did not provide evidence to support the 

assertion that accommodations for students with 

limited English proficiency allow for valid inferences 

about these students’ knowledge and skills. It does not 

appear that the state monitors availability of 

accommodations during test administration. The use of 

accommodations should be validated on the state’s 

own student population. 

Source: GAO review of Education’s peer review notes for 38 states. 

Note: This table includes examples from the categories used in Education’s peer review process that

determine if a state’s assessments are valid, reliable, fair and accessible, and use appropriate 

accommodations. 

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

appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create assessments that 

produce valid and reliable results for students with limited English 

proficiency and identified essential steps that should be taken. The group

noted that no state has implemented an assessment program for students 

with limited English proficiency that is consistent with the Standards for 

Educational and Psychological Testing and other technical standards. 

Specifically, the group said that students with limited English proficiency 

are not defined consistently within and across states, which is a crucial

first step to ensuring the reliability of test results. A reliable test should 

produce consistent results, so that students achieve similar scores if tested 

repeatedly. If the language proficiency levels of students with limited 

English proficiency are classified inconsistently, an assessment may 

produce results that appear inconsistent because of the variable 

classifications rather than actual differences in skill levels. One expert 

noted, for example, that some studies have shown that a student’s 

language proficiency plays a small role in determining whether a student is 

classified as limited English proficient. Inconsistency in defining these 

Page 28 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
students may be due to variation in how school districts apply state 

definitions. For example, according to a 2005 study on students with 

limited English proficiency in California, state board of education 

guidelines suggest that districts consider a student’s performance on the 

state’s English language proficiency assessment and on the state’s 

language arts test, a teacher evaluation of the student’s academic 

performance, and parental recommendations when determining if a 

student should or should not continue to be considered limited English 

proficient. However, the study noted that districts interpreted and applied 

these factors differently.16 Further, it appears that many state assessment 

programs do not conduct separate analyses for different groups of limited 

English proficient students. Our group of experts indicated that the 

reliability of a test may be different for heterogeneous groups of students 

with limited English proficiency, such as students who are literate in their 

native language and those who are not. 

Our group of experts also noted that states are not always explicit about 

whether an assessment is attempting to measure skills only (such as 

mathematics) or mathematics skills as expressed in English. According to

the group, a fundamental issue affecting the validity of a test is the 

definition of what is being measured. Members of the group emphasized 

that approaches to ensure valid test results should vary based on which of

these is being measured. For example, North Carolina officials stated that 

the state did not offer native language assessments because the state has 

explicitly chosen to measure student knowledge in English. 

The expert group emphasized that determining the validity and reliability 

of academic assessments for students with limited English proficiency is 

complicated and requires a comprehensive collection of evidence rather 

than a single analysis or review. As one expert noted, “you can’t just do 

one thing and assume things are valid.” In addition, the appropriate 

combination of analyses will vary from state to state, depending on the 

characteristics of the student population and the type of assessment. For 

example, because reliability of test results can vary based on a student’s 

English proficiency status or a student’s native language, states with more 

diverse groups of limited English proficient students may need to conduct

additional analyses to ensure sufficient reliability. The group indicated 

that states are not universally using all the appropriate analyses to 

 16Christopher Jepsen and Shelley de Alth, “English Learners in California Schools,” (San 

Francisco, California: Public Policy Institute of California, 2005). 

Page 29 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
evaluate the validity and reliability of test results for students with limited 

English proficiency. Instead, our experts noted that states vary in terms of 

the particular techniques they use for this purpose, and in the extent to 

which they collect valid background data. Members indicated that some 

states may need assistance to conduct appropriate analyses that will offer 

useful information about the validity of their academic assessments for 

these students. 

Finally, our group of experts indicated that reducing language complexity 

is essential to developing valid assessments for these students, but 

expressed concern that some states and test developers do not have a 

strong understanding of universal design principles or how to use them to 

develop assessments from the beginning to eliminate language that is not 

relevant to measuring a student’s knowledge of, for example, mathematics. 

Members believed that some states may need more information on how to 

implement these principles to develop assessments that produce valid 

results for students with limited English proficiency. 

Accommodations Can 

Increase Validity of 

Assessment Results, but 

Research on Appropriate 

Use Is Limited 

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

validity and reliability of assessment results for students with limited 

English proficiency. These accommodations are intended to permit 

students with limited English proficiency to demonstrate their academic 

knowledge, despite their limited language ability. Our review of state Web

sites found available documentation on accommodations for 42 states. The 

number of accommodations offered varied considerably among states. 

One state, for example, offered students with limited English proficiency 

the use of a bilingual dictionary and a side-by-side English-Spanish version 

of its grade 10 mathematics test. Another state listed over 40 acceptable 

accommodations, including clarifying test directions in English or the 

student’s native language, offering extra time, and providing responses 

(written or oral) in the student’s native language.

Our review found that the most common accommodations offered by 

these states were allowing the use of a bilingual dictionary and reading 

test items aloud in English (see table 6). In addition, they offered other 

accommodations intended to create a less distracting environment for 

students, such as administering the assessment to the student in a small 

group or individually. Some states also gave students with limited English 

proficiency extra time to complete a test to account for their slower 

reading speed and information processing time in English. The 5 states we 

studied varied in how they established and offered accommodations to 

students. For example, Texas officials reported working with its limited 

Page 30 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
English proficiency focus group to develop a list of allowable 

accommodations, which may be offered on a test when they are routinely 

used by students in their classrooms. In addition, each school district has a 

committee to select particular accommodations based on the needs of 

individual students. California officials told us the state provides guidance 

to districts on the appropriate use of accommodations. However, they said

that districts might not provide approved accommodations because of 

high administrator turnover. 

Table 6: Most Frequently Cited Accommodations in 42 States 

Accommodation Number of states

Bilingual dictionary 32

Reading items aloud in English 32

Small group administration 29

Extra time 27

Individual administration 27

Separate location 25

Extra breaks 25

Directions in student’s native language 24

Source: GAO review of state documentation.

According to our expert group and our review of the relevant literature, 

research is lacking on what specific accommodations are appropriate for 

students with limited English proficiency, as well as their effectiveness in 

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

policies found that few studies focus on accommodations intended to 

address the linguistic needs of students with limited English proficiency or 

on how accommodations affect the performance of students with limited 

English proficiency.17 In contrast, significantly more research has been 

conducted on accommodations for students with disabilities, much of it 

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

experts reported that some states offer accommodations to students with 

limited English proficiency based on those they offer to students with 

disabilities, without determining their appropriateness for individual 

students. Our experts noted the importance of considering individual 

student characteristics to ensure that an accommodation appropriately 

 17Charlene Rivera and Eric Collum. An Analysis of State Assessment Policies Addressing 

the Accommodation of English Language Learners. The George Washington University 

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

Page 31 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
addresses the needs of the student. Other researchers have raised similar 

issues about the use of accommodations by states. 

Education’s peer reviews of state academic assessments identified issues 

related to accommodations for students with limited English proficiency 

in all 38 states reviewed. For example, the reviewers noted that South 

Dakota does not clearly indicate whether students with limited English 

proficiency were provided accommodations that they do not regularly use 

in the classroom. If an accommodation is not used regularly in the 

classroom, it may not improve the validity of test results because the 

student may not be comfortable with a new procedure. In addition, they 

noted that South Dakota does not appear to be monitoring the use of 

accommodations and suggested that the state study accommodations to 

ensure that they are instructionally appropriate and that they improve the 

validity and reliability of the results. In Texas, the reviewers noted that the 

state needs to provide information regarding the quality and consistency 

of accommodations for students with limited English proficiency—

specifically whether the state routinely monitors the use of 

accommodations for these students. In North Carolina, they noted a lack 

of evidence that the state has performed research on accommodations. 

Although conducting such research could provide useful information on 

the validity of accommodated tests, having each state individually study 

accommodations could be financially burdensome for them. While 

research on accommodations for this population would be useful, it does 

not have to be conducted directly by states to be applicable to a state’s 

student population. Further, such research could involve short-term 

studies, rather than large-scale, longitudinal efforts. 

Native Language and 

Alternate Assessments 

May Improve the Validity 

of Results but Are 

Challenging to Implement 

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

language assessments in language arts or mathematics in some grades for 

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

year. For example, New York translated its statewide mathematics 

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

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

language assessment, and several states allowed school districts to 

translate state assessments or offer their own native language

assessments. Our group of experts told us that this type of assessment is 

difficult and costly to develop. An assessment provided in a student’s 

native language is intended to remove language barriers students face in 

demonstrating their content knowledge and thereby improve the validity 

of test results. Of the 16 states that offered statewide native language

assessments, 4 were able to provide complete data on the number of 

Page 32 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
students taking native language assessments. These data indicated that 

relatively few students took these assessments. 

Our group of experts and some state officials also described the 

challenges of developing native language assessments that produce valid 

results. Members of our expert group and other experts told us that native 

language assessments are generally an effective accommodation only for 

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

their native language or are literate in their native language. In addition, 

our experts emphasized that developing valid native language assessments 

is challenging, time-consuming, and expensive. Development of a valid 

native language assessment involves more than a simple translation of the 

original test; in most situations, a process of test development and 

validation similar to that of the nontranslated test is recommended to 

ensure the validity of the test. In addition, the administration of native 

language assessments may not be practicable, for example, when only a 

small percentage of limited English students in the state speak a particular 

language or when a state’s student population has many languages. 

Thirteen states offered statewide alternate assessments (such as reviewing 

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

limited English proficiency, based on our review of accountability plans 

for all states and the District of Columbia as of March 2006. We also found 

that 4 additional states allowed school districts to offer alternate 

assessments, while 7 states and the District of Columbia planned to offer 

alternate assessments. An official in Wisconsin told us that the state 

administers an alternate assessment because developing a native language

assessment for its relatively small Spanish-speaking population would be 

impractical and the state does not have bilingual programs in the second 

most common language, Hmong (a language that is native to Southeast 

Asia). However, our group of experts noted that alternate assessments are 

difficult and expensive to develop, and may not be feasible because of the

amount of time required for such an assessment. Members of the group 

also expressed concern about the extent to which these assessments are 

objective and comparable and can be aggregated with regular 

assessments. See figure 4 for information on which states offered native 

language or alternate assessments for students with limited English 

proficiency.

Page 33 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Figure 4: Use of Native Language and Alternate Assessments for Students with Limited English Proficiency

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak.

Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

W.Va. Va.

Ky.

Source: GAO survey and state accountability workbooks.

S.C.

Tenn.

Statewide alternate assessment (7)

Statewide native language assessment (10)

Both (6)

Neither (28)

Page 34 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
With respect to English language proficiency assessments, many states 

implemented new tests to address NCLBA requirements, and are working 

to align them with newly required state English language proficiency 

standards. State and consortia officials reported that states are using 

assessments or test items developed by state consortia, customized 

assessments developed by testing companies, state-developed 

assessments, and off-the-shelf assessments. While a few states already had 

the required English language proficiency assessments in place, many 

states are implementing them for the first time in spring 2006; as a result, 

evidence on their validity and reliability may not be fully developed. 

Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments 

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

to administer English language proficiency tests that meet NCLBA 

requirements by the spring of 2006.18 These assessments must allow states 

to track student progress in learning English; in addition, Education 

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

proficiency standards. According to Education and test development 

officials, prior to NCLBA, most states used off-the-shelf English language 

proficiency assessments to determine the placement of students in 

language instruction programs, but these assessments did not have to be

aligned with standards. Education officials said that because many states 

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

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

state standards and measure student progress. Officials in some states told 

us they have chosen to use these consortium-developed tests, while 

officials in other states reported developing their own tests or continuing 

to use off-the-shelf tests. Some states had only recently determined what 

test they are going to administer this year, while others may administer a 

new test in the 2006-2007 school year. Education officials noted that states’ 

decisions on these tests have been in flux during this transition year. 

Most States 

Implemented New 

English Language 

Proficiency 

Assessments but 

Faced Challenges 

Establishing Their 

Validity and 

Reliability 

States Are Working with 

Consortia and Test 

Developers and 

Individually to Develop 

New English Language 

Proficiency Assessments 

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

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

approach taken by states to develop new English language proficiency 

 18Education officials told us that the agency has approved an extension of this deadline for 

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

Page 35 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
assessments. Each of the four consortia varied somewhat in its 

development approach.19 For example, officials in two consortia reported 

that they examined all their member states’ English language proficiency 

standards and reached consensus on core standards for use on the English 

language proficiency assessments. They also planned to continue working 

with member states in implementing their assessments. For example, one 

consortium plans to provide ongoing professional development to help 

educators understand the consortium’s standards. In contrast, officials in

the other two consortia reported that the consortia disbanded after 

developing their assessments. One state official told us that the state hired 

a contractor to customize the consortium-developed assessment to more 

closely align with state standards. In addition, officials in other states, 

such as New Mexico, told us they are using a combination of consortiumdeveloped test items, along with items developed by another test 

developer. 

Fifteen states participated in one of the consortia, but officials in these 

states told us they chose not to use the assessments developed by the 

consortia in the 2005-2006 school year for a variety of reasons, including 

lack of alignment with state standards, the length of the assessment, and 

the cost of implementation. For example, Kentucky chose not to use the 

consortium assessment because of cost effectiveness concerns and lack of 

alignment with state standards. Another state decided not to use the 

consortium-developed assessment, as officials were concerned about its 

cumbersome nature and associated cost. Officials in some states told us 

they plan to use consortium-developed assessments in the future. For 

example, Florida officials reported that the state will use a consortium 

assessment in the 2006-2007 school year. Appendix V shows the states that 

participated in the consortia and which used consortia-developed 

assessments in the 2005-2006 school year. 

Officials in states that did not use consortia assessments told us that they

used other approaches to develop their English language proficiency

assessments. Eight states worked with test developers to augment off-theshelf English language proficiency assessments to incorporate state 

standards. For example, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Wyoming are 

using versions of an English language proficiency assessment that has 

 19The four consortia include the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA)

Consortium, State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS)

Consortium, Mountain West Assessment Consortium (MWAC), and Pennsylvania Enhanced

Assessment Grant (PA EAG) Consortium.

Page 36 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
been augmented to align to their respective state standards. Officials in 

14 states indicated that they are administering off-the-shelf assessments. 

These officials indicated varying degrees of alignment between the off-theshelf tests being used and their state’s English language proficiency 

standards; in 11 of these states, the assessment has not been fully aligned

with state standards.20 Seven states, including Texas, Minnesota, and 

Kansas, created their own English language proficiency assessments. 

Officials in these states said they typically worked with a test developer or

research organization to create the assessments. See figure 5 and appendix

VI for more detailed information on the English language proficiency 

assessments used by each state. 

 20Although these assessments are not fully aligned to state standards, Education officials 

noted that they have not yet provided states guidance on what level of alignment the

agency expects. Thus, some of these may ultimately meet Education’s requirements. 

Page 37 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Figure 5: Type of English Language Proficiency Assessment Administered in 2005–2006 School Year 

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak.

Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

W.Va. Va.

Ky.

Source: Interviews with consortia and state officials. 

S.C.

Tenn.

Consortium or consortium test items (22)

Augmented off-the-shelf (8)

State (7)

Off-the-shelf (14)

Some officials in our 5 study states and 28 additional states we contacted 

to determine what English language proficiency assessment they planned 

to use in 2006 pointed to some challenges involving their English language

proficiency assessments. Some of these state officials expressed concerns

about using both their old and new English language proficiency 

assessments to measure student progress in learning English. NCLBA 

Page 38 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
required states to begin tracking student progress in the 2002–2003 school 

year, before most states had implemented their new English language

proficiency assessments. In May 2006, Education officials told us that 

states must rely on baseline results from their old tests and determine how 

results from their old tests relate to results from their new tests in order to 

track student progress since 2003, as required by NCLBA. They noted that 

states may change their English language proficiency goals based on 

results from their new assessments, but they cannot change the initial 

baseline established with their old test. In its technical comments on this 

report, Education noted that it allows states to make such determinations 

in a variety of ways, as long as annual progress is reported. Officials in 

some states want to rely solely on data from their new tests to track 

student progress. They stated that, unlike their old tests, their new tests 

provide more accurate data on student progress because they are aligned

to their English language proficiency standards and were designed to 

measure student progress. Officials from other states questioned the 

usefulness of conducting studies to determine the relationship between 

their old and new tests, especially in states that had previously used 

multiple English language proficiency assessments. 

Officials in a few of our study states also expressed concern about the 

appropriateness of NCLBA’s requirement to assess students with limited 

English proficiency in kindergarten and the first and second grades. For 

example, Texas officials told us traditional tests do not produce good test

results for students this young in part because of their limited attention 

spans. In addition, officials in Texas and North Carolina noted that English 

proficient students in these grades are not required to be assessed in the 

same way. 

Many States Are Still in the 

Process of Establishing the 

Validity and Reliability of 

English Language 

Proficiency Assessments 

Officials in our study states and test developers we interviewed reported 

that they commonly apply generally accepted test development 

procedures in the development of English language proficiency 

assessments, but some are still in the process of documenting the validity 

and reliability of these assessments. For example, some evidence needed 

to confirm the validity and reliability of the test can be obtained only after

the assessment has been fully administered. One consortium contracted 

with a research organization to assess the validity and reliability testing of 

its English language proficiency assessment. According to a consortium 

official, the research organization performed all of the standard steps that 

are taken to ensure high-quality assessments. These included piloting and 

field testing the assessment and conducting statistical modeling. An 

official from another consortium said that its test vendor is conducting 

Page 39 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
basic psychometric research and analyzing field test data for evidence of 

reliability. California officials noted that the process for developing and 

ensuring the validity and reliability of its English language proficiency 

assessment is similar to that used for its state academic assessments. 

Although states have taken steps toward determining validity, 

documenting the validity and reliability of a new assessment is an ongoing

process. A 2005 review of the documentation of 17 English language

proficiency assessments used by 33 states in the 2005-2006 school year 

found that the evidence presented on validity and reliability was generally

insufficient.21 The report, which was funded by Education, reviewed 

documentation for consortium-developed assessments, off-the-shelf 

assessments, and custom-developed assessments for evidence of validity, 

reliability, and freedom from test bias, among other things. It found that 

the technical adequacy of English language proficiency assessments is 

undeveloped compared to the adequacy of assessments for general 

education. The study noted that none of the assessments contained 

“sufficient technical evidence to support the high-stakes accountability 

information and conclusions of student readiness they are meant to 

provide.” 

In addition, many states are in the process of aligning these assessments to

state English language proficiency standards, which in turn must be 

aligned to state content standards. These steps are needed to comply with 

NCLBA requirements. Alignment, which refers to the degree to which an 

assessment’s items measure the content they are intended to measure, is 

critical in assuring the validity of an assessment. Officials in some states22

have expressed uncertainty about how to align their English language 

proficiency test with their standards for academic subjects, such as 

mathematics and science.23 Officials in 2 states told us that their English 

 21Stanley Rabinowitz and Edynn Sato, “Evidence-Based Plan: Technical Adequacy of 

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

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

22The states providing these comments represent more than our 5 case study states. We 

also contacted officials in 28 additional states to determine what English language 

proficiency assessment they planned to use in 2006. 

23Education does not require state English language proficiency tests to be aligned to state 

academic standards. However, states’ English language proficiency tests and academic 

standards are connected, in that Education requires that state’s English language 

proficiency tests be aligned to state English language proficiency standards and NCLBA

requires that state English language proficiency standards be aligned with state academic 

standards. 

Page 40 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
language proficiency assessments are aligned to state language arts 

standards but are not aligned to state mathematics standards, meaning 

that the assessment may not measure the language needed to succeed in a

mathematics class. Findings from Education’s Title III monitoring reviews 

of 13 states indicated that 8 states had not yet fully completed alignment; 

of these, 5 had not yet linked their English language proficiency and

academic content standards, while 5 had not yet aligned their English 

language proficiency assessments with their English language proficiency 

standards.24

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

appropriately assess students with limited English proficiency, such as 

providing training and expert reviews of their assessment systems, as well 

as flexibility in assessing these students. However, Education has issued 

little written guidance on how states are expected to assess and track the 

English proficiency of these students, leaving state officials unclear about 

Education’s expectations. To support states’ efforts to incorporate these 

students into their accountability systems, Education has offered states 

some flexibilities in how they track progress goals for these students. 

However, many of the state and district officials we interviewed told us 

that the current flexibilities do not fully account for some characteristics 

of certain students in this student group, such as their lack of previous 

schooling. These officials indicated that additional flexibility is needed to 

ensure that the federal progress measures accurately track the academic 

progress of these students. 

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

requirements for assessing students with limited English proficiency for 

both their language proficiency and their academic knowledge. Some of 

these efforts focus specifically on students with limited English 

proficiency, while others, such as the Title I monitoring visits, focus on all 

student groups and on broader compliance issues but review some 

assessment issues related to students with limited English proficiency as 

part of their broader purposes. The agency’s primary technical assistance 

efforts have included the following: 

Education Has 

Provided Assistance, 

but States Reported 

Need for Additional 

Guidance and 

Flexibility 

Education Has Provided a 

Variety of Support on 

Assessment Issues but 

Little Written Guidance on 

Assessing Students with 

Limited English 

Proficiency 

 24We reviewed reports from Title III monitoring visits of 13 states conducted between April 

and October 2005 that were available from Education as of March 31, 2006. 

Page 41 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
• Title I peer reviews of states’ academic standards and assessment 

systems: Education is currently conducting peer reviews of the academic 

assessments that states use in measuring adequate yearly progress. During 

these reviews, three independent experts review evidence provided by the 

state about the validity and reliability of these assessments (including 

whether the results are valid and reliable for students with limited English 

proficiency) and make recommendations to Education about whether the 

state’s assessment system is technically sufficient and meets all legal

requirements. Education shares information from the peer review to help 

states address issues identified during the review. Education has imposed 

a deadline requiring that states receive peer review approval by June 30, 

2006, but only 10 states have had their assessment systems fully approved

by Education as of that date.25

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

review state compliance with Title III requirements in 2005 and has visited

15 states. Education officials reported that they plan to visit 11 more states 

in 2006. As part of these visits, the agency reviews the state’s progress in 

developing English language proficiency assessments that meet NCLBA 

requirements. 

• Comprehensive centers: Education has contracted with 16 regional 

comprehensive centers to build state capacity to help districts that are not 

meeting their adequate yearly progress goals. The grants for these centers 

were awarded in September 2005, and the centers provide a broad range of 

assistance, focusing on the specific needs of individual states. At least 3 of 

these centers plan to assist individual states in developing appropriate 

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

funded an assessment and accountability comprehensive center, which 

provides technical assistance to the regional comprehensive centers on 

issues related to the assessment of students, including those with limited 

English proficiency. 

• Ongoing technical assistance for English language proficiency 

assessments: Education has provided information and ongoing technical 

assistance to states using a variety of tools and has focused specifically on

the development of the English language proficiency standards and 

assessments required by NCLBA. These include: 

 25Education has sent letters to the remaining states outlining the issues that need to be

resolved in order for their assessment systems to be approved.

Page 42 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
• a semiannual review of reports states submit to Education and phone 

calls to state officials focused on state progress in developing their 

English language proficiency assessments; 

• on-site technical assistance to states regarding their English language

proficiency assessments; 

• an annual conference focused on students with limited English 

proficiency that includes sessions on assessment issues, such as 

aligning English language proficiency and academic content standards; 

• videoconference training sessions for state officials on developing 

English language proficiency assessments; 

• providing guidance on issues related to students with limited English 

proficiency on its Web site; 

• distributing information through an electronic bulletin board and a 

weekly electronic newsletter focused on students with limited English 

proficiency;

• disseminating information through the National Clearinghouse for 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 

Programs; 

• semiannual meetings and training sessions with state Title III directors; 

and 

• responding to questions from individual states as needed. 

• Enhanced Assessment Grants: Since 2003, Education has awarded these 

grants, authorized by NCLBA, to support state activities designed to 

improve the validity and reliability of state assessments. According to an 

Education official, most of the grants up to now have funded the English 

language proficiency consortia, although some grants have been used to 

conduct research on accommodations. For grants to be awarded in 2006,

Education will give preference to projects involving accommodations and 

alternate assessments intended to increase the validity of assessments for 

students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. 

• Title I monitoring visits: As part of its monitoring visits to review state 

compliance with Title I requirements, Education reviews some aspects of 

the academic assessments administered by states, but in less detail than

during its peer reviews. During these visits, for example, states may 

receive some feedback on how the state administers academic

assessments to students with limited English proficiency and the 

appropriateness of accommodations offered to these students. Education

staff also reported that they respond to questions about Title I 

requirements from individual states as needed. 

While providing states with a broad range of technical assistance and 

guidance through informal channels, Education has issued little written 

Page 43 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
guidance on developing English language proficiency assessments that 

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

acquiring English. Education issued some limited nonregulatory guidance 

on NCLBA’s basic requirements for English language proficiency 

standards and assessments in February 2003. However, officials in about 

one-third of the 33 states we visited or directly contacted expressed 

uncertainty about implementing these requirements. They told us that they 

would like more specific guidance from Education to help them develop 

tests that meet NCLBA requirements, generally focusing on two issues. 

First, some officials said they were unsure about how to align English 

language proficiency standards with content standards for language arts, 

mathematics, and science, as required by NCLBA. An official in 1 state said 

the state needed specific guidance on what Education wants from these 

assessments, such as how to integrate content vocabulary on the English 

language proficiency assessment without creating an excessively long test. 

In another state, officials explained that the state was developing its 

English language proficiency test by using an off-the-shelf test and 

incorporating additional items to align the test with the state’s English 

language proficiency and academic standards. However, the state 

discovered that it had not correctly augmented the test and will 

consequently have to revise the test. Officials in this state noted that they

have had to develop this test without a lot of guidance from Education. 

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

different scores from their old and new English language proficiency 

assessments to track student progress. For example, an official in 1 state 

said that she would like guidance from Education on how to measure 

student progress in English language proficiency using different tests over 

time. Another official was unsure if Education required a formal study to 

correlate the results from their old and new English language proficiency 

assessments, noting that more specific guidance would help them better 

understand Education’s requirements. Without guidance and specific 

examples on both of these issues, some of these officials were concerned

that they will spend time and resources developing an assessment that 

may not meet Education’s requirements. 

Education officials told us that they are currently developing additional 

nonregulatory guidance on these issues, but it has not been finalized. They 

also pointed out that they have provided extensive technical assistance on 

developing English language proficiency standards and assessments, and 

have clearly explained the requirements to state officials at different 

meetings on multiple occasions. An Education official acknowledged that 

states were looking for more guidance on the degree of alignment required 

Page 44 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
between their English language proficiency assessments and standards, 

noting that Education is still considering the issue. She stated that the 

issue would be addressed in the guidance it plans to issue in the future. 

With respect to academic content assessments, our group of experts 

reported that some states could use more assistance in creating valid

academic assessments for students with limited English proficiency. While 

4 of the 5 states we studied in depth had significant experience in, and

multiple staff devoted to, developing language arts and mathematics 

assessments, some members of our expert group pointed out that the 

assessment departments in other states have limited resources and 

expertise, as well as high turnover. As a result, these states need help to 

conduct appropriate analyses that will offer useful information about the 

validity and reliability of their academic assessments for students with 

limited English proficiency. An Education official told us that the agency 

recently began offering technical assistance to states that need help 

addressing issues raised during their peer reviews. 

Our group of experts suggested several areas where states could benefit 

from additional assistance and guidance in developing academic 

assessments for students with limited English proficiency. Several 

members noted the lack of good research on what kinds of 

accommodations can help mitigate language barriers for students with 

limited English proficiency. Several experts also believed that some states 

need more information on how to implement universal design principles to 

develop assessments that produce valid results for students with limited 

English proficiency. In addition, some group members pointed out that 

developing equivalent assessments in other languages (that is,

assessments that measure the same thing and are of equivalent difficulty) 

is challenging and that states need more information about how to develop

such assessments, as well as examples. 

Education has offered states several flexibilities in tracking academic 

progress goals for students with limited English proficiency to support 

their efforts to develop appropriate accountability systems for these 

students. In a February 2004 notice, Education recognized the existence of 

language barriers that hinder the assessment of students who have been in

the country for a short time and provided some testing flexibility for these 

students. Specifically, Education does not require students with limited 

English proficiency to participate in a state’s language arts assessment 

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

must take a state’s mathematics assessment during their first year in U.S.

Education Has Offered 

Different Accountability 

Options for Students with 

Limited English 

Proficiency, but State 

Officials Reported 

Additional Flexibility Is 

Needed 

Page 45 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
schools, a state may exclude their scores in determining whether it met its 

progress goals.26

Education offered additional flexibility in its February 2004 notice, 

recognizing that limited English proficiency is a more transient quality 

than having a disability or being of a particular race. Unlike the other 

NCLBA student groups, students who achieve English proficiency leave 

the group at the point when they are more prepared to demonstrate their 

academic knowledge in English, while new students with lower English 

proficiency are constantly entering the group (see fig. 6). Given the group’s 

continually changing composition, meeting progress goals may be more 

difficult than doing so for other student groups, especially in districts 

serving large numbers of students with limited English proficiency. To 

compensate for this, Education allowed states to include, for up to 2 years, 

the scores of students who were formerly classified as limited English 

proficient when determining whether a state met its progress goals for 

students with limited English proficiency. In addition, Education has 

approved requests from several states to permit students who have been 

redesignated as English proficient to remain in the group of students with 

limited English proficiency until they have achieved the proficient level on

the state’s language arts assessment for 1 or more years. 

 26On June 24, 2004, Education issued proposed regulations on these flexibilities for 

students with limited English proficiency for public comment, but the regulations have not

been finalized as of June 2006. 

Page 46 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Figure 6: Movement of Students In and Out of Limited English Proficient Student Group and Other Student Groups

Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion images.

Students with limited English proficiency

Students leave group once they acquire English 

proficiency and are more likely to have language skills 

to demonstrate academic knowledge on state tests

Students 

acquire English 

proficiency and 

leave student 

group

Students 

transfer out 

of school

Students 

drop out 

of school

Students 

graduate

New students enroll 

in school

SCHOOL

Students transfer out 

of school

Students drop out 

of school

Students graduate

New students enroll 

in school

SCHOOL

 Other student groups (students of different 

 ethnic groups, with disabilities, or 

 who are economically disadvantaged)

Students generally remain in group until 

they leave school

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

flexibility would be helpful to ensure that the annual progress measures 

provide meaningful information about the performance of students with 

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

suggested that certain students with limited English proficiency should be 

Page 47 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
exempt for longer periods from taking academic content assessments or 

that their test results should be excluded from a state’s annual progress 

determination for a longer period than is currently allowed. Several 

officials voiced concern that some of these students have such poor 

English skills or so little previous school experience that the assessment 

results do not provide any meaningful information. Instead, some of these 

officials stated that students with limited English proficiency should not

be included in academic assessments until they demonstrate appropriate 

English skills on the state’s English language proficiency assessment. 

However, the National Council of La Raza, an Hispanic advocacy 

organization, has voiced concern that excluding too many students with 

limited English proficiency from a state’s annual progress measures will 

allow some states and districts to overlook the needs of these students. 

Education officials reported that they are developing a regulation with 

regard to how test scores for this student group are included in a state’s 

annual progress measures, but it has not yet been finalized. 

With respect to including the scores of students previously classified as 

limited English proficient in a state’s progress measures for this group for 

up to 2 years, officials in 2 of our 5 study states, as well as one member of 

our expert group, thought it would be more appropriate for these students 

to be counted in the limited English proficient group throughout their 

school careers—but only for accountability purposes. They pointed out 

that by keeping students formerly classified as limited English proficient in 

the group, districts that work well with these students would see increases 

in the percentage who score at the proficient level in language arts and 

mathematics. An Education official explained that the agency does not 

want to label these students as limited English proficient any longer than 

necessary and considered including test results for these students for 

2 years after they have achieved English proficiency to be the right 

balance. Education officials also noted that including all students who 

were formerly limited English proficient would inflate the achievement 

measures for the student group. 

District officials in 4 of the states we studied argued that tracking the 

progress of individual students in this group is a better measure of how 

well these students are progressing academically. Officials in one district 

pointed to a high school with a large percentage of students with limited 

English proficiency that had made tremendous progress with these 

students, doubling the percentage of students achieving academic 

proficiency. The school missed the annual progress target for this group 

by a few percentage points, but school officials said that the school would 

be considered successful if it was measured by how much individual 

Page 48 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
students had improved in their test scores. A district official in another 

state explained that many students with limited English proficiency 

initially have very low test scores, but demonstrate tremendous 

improvement in these scores over time. In response to educators and 

policymakers who believe such an approach should be used for all 

students, Education initiated a pilot project in November 2005, allowing a 

limited number of states to incorporate measures of student progress over 

time in determining whether districts and schools met their annual 

progress goals. Even using this approach, however, states must still 

establish annual goals that lead to all students achieving proficient scores 

by 2014.27

NCLBA has focused attention on the academic performance of all 

students, especially those who have historically not performed as well as

the general student population, such as students with limited English 

proficiency. NCLBA requires states to include these students in their 

language arts and mathematics assessments and to assess them in a valid 

and reliable manner, and states are in various stages of doing so. Although 

Education has provided some technical assistance to states, our group of 

experts and others have noted the complexity of developing academic 

assessments for these students and have raised concerns about the 

technical expertise of states to ensure the validity and reliability of 

assessment results. Using assessment results that are not a good measure 

of student knowledge is likely to lead to poor measures of state and 

district progress, thereby undermining NCLBA’s purpose to hold schools 

accountable for student progress. Further, although most states offered 

these students accommodations, research on their appropriateness is 

limited. National research on accommodations has informed states’ 

practices in assessing students with disabilities. Without similar research 

efforts, accommodations offered to students with limited English 

proficiency may not improve the validity of their test results. 

Conclusions 

While Education has provided some support and training to states, 

officials in a number of states are still uncertain about how to comply with 

some of the more technical requirements of the new English language

proficiency assessments required by NCLBA. State officials reported that 

 27See GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic

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

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

Page 49 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
they need more guidance from Education to develop these assessments. 

States have had to develop many new assessments under NCLBA for both 

English language proficiency and academic content, and some states may 

lack the technical expertise to develop assessments that produce valid 

results for students with limited English proficiency. Without more 

specific guidance outlining Education’s requirements, states may spend 

time developing English language proficiency assessments that do not 

adequately track student progress in learning English or otherwise meet 

NCLBA’s requirements. 

Including students with limited English proficiency in NCLBA’s 

accountability framework presents unique challenges. For example, 

students who have little formal schooling may make significant progress in 

learning academic skills, but may not achieve proficiency on state 

academic assessments for several years. The movement of students into 

and out of the group also makes it more difficult for the group to meet 

state progress goals, even when these students are making academic 

progress. Education has addressed some of the unique characteristics of 

this student group and provided some flexibility in how states and districts 

are held accountable for the progress of these students. However, these 

current flexibilities may not fully account for the characteristics of certain 

students with limited English proficiency, such as those who have little 

previous formal schooling. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Education 

1. Support additional research on appropriate accommodations for 

students with limited English proficiency and disseminate information 

on research-based accommodations to states. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

2. Determine what additional technical assistance states need with 

respect to assessing the academic knowledge of students with limited 

English proficiency and to improve the validity and reliability of their 

assessment results (such as consultations with assessment experts and 

examples of assessments targeted to these students) and provide such 

additional assistance. 

3. Publish additional guidance with more specific information on the 

requirements for assessing English language proficiency and tracking 

the progress of students with limited English proficiency in learning 

English. 

Page 50 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
4. Explore ways to provide additional flexibilities to states in terms of 

holding states accountable for students with limited English 

proficiency. For example, among the flexibilities that could be 

considered are 

• allowing states to include the assessment scores for all students 

formerly considered to have limited English proficiency in a state’s 

annual progress results for the group of students with limited English 

proficiency,

• extending the period during which the assessment scores for some or 

all students with limited English proficiency would not be included in a 

state’s annual progress results, and 

• adjusting how states account for recent immigrants with little formal 

schooling in their annual progress results. 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 

The agency provided comments, which are reproduced in appendix VII.

Education also provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated 

when appropriate. Education agreed with our first three 

recommendations. The department noted that it has conducted some 

research on the effectiveness of accommodations and is currently working 

with its National Research and Development Center for Assessment and 

Accountability to synthesize the existing research literature on the 

assessment of students with limited English proficiency. Education also 

explained that it has begun the process of identifying the additional 

technical assistance needs of states with respect to academic assessments; 

specifically, it will have its Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive 

Center conduct a needs assessment this fall to determine specific areas in 

which states need assistance and will provide technical assistance to 

address those areas. In addition, the department stated that it is exploring 

ways to help states assess English language proficiency. 

Agency Comments 

Education did not explicitly agree or disagree with our fourth 

recommendation. Instead, the agency commented that it has explored and 

already provided various types of flexibility regarding the inclusion of 

students with limited English proficiency in accountability systems. 

Further, Education noted that it is in the process of completing a 

regulation on flexibility for these students. However, the department also 

emphasized that all students with limited English proficiency must be 

included in school accountability systems to improve both instruction and 

achievement outcomes. Through our recommendation, we encourage the 

department to continue its efforts. 

Page 51 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, 

relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will 

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

be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions or wish to discuss this report 

further, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or at shaulm@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Other contacts and 

major contributors are listed in appendix VIII. 

Marnie S. Shaul 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 

Page 52 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix I: GAO’s Group of Experts on 

Assessing the Academic Knowledge of 

Students with Limited English Proficiency

Page 53 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 

Appendix I: GAO’s Group of Experts on 

Assessing the Academic Knowledge of 

Students with Limited English Proficiency 

On January 20, 2006, GAO, with the assistance of the National Academy of

Sciences, convened a group of experts in Davis, California, to discuss 

issues related to assessing the academic knowledge of students with 

limited English proficiency. Specifically, we asked the group to discuss the 

following questions: 

• To meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), 

what steps should states take to ensure the validity and reliability of 

language arts and mathematics assessments for students with limited 

English proficiency? 

• What steps should states take to ensure that students with limited 

English proficiency receive appropriate accommodations on language

arts and mathematics assessments? 

• Given NCLBA’s accountability framework, what is the most 

appropriate way to hold schools and districts accountable for the 

performance of students with limited English proficiency? 

• How can the U.S. Department of Education assist states in their efforts 

to meet NCLBA’s assessment and accountability requirements for 

students with limited English proficiency? 

Group members who were selected had significant technical and research 

expertise in assessments issues. Some members had technical expertise 

on general assessment issues, while others had specifically conducted 

assessment research focused on students with limited English proficiency. 

The members of our expert group are listed below: 

Dr. Jamal Abedi 

University of California, Davis 

Dr. Stephen Dunbar 

The University of Iowa 

Dr. Richard Durán 

University of California, Santa Barbara 

Dr. Steven Ferrara 

American Institutes for Research 

Dr. Patricia Gándara 

University of California, Davis 
Appendix I: GAO’s Group of Experts on 

Assessing the Academic Knowledge of 

Students with Limited English Proficiency

Dr. Edward Haertel 

Stanford University 

Dr. Rebecca Kopriva 

University of Maryland 

Dr. Stanley Rabinowitz 

WestEd 

Dr. Charlene Rivera 

The George Washington University 

Dr. Rebecca Zwick 

University of California, Santa Barbara 

Page 54 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix II: Determining Adequate Yearly

Progress for Student Groups 

Page 55 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 

Appendix II: Determining Adequate Yearly 

Progress for Student Groups 

NCLBA requires states to report adequate yearly progress (AYP) results at 

the state level for each of the required student groups, including students 

with limited English proficiency. The law also requires Education, starting 

in the 2004-2005 school year, to make an annual determination about 

whether states have made adequate yearly progress for each student 

group.1

 Education has issued some general regulations regarding statelevel adequate yearly progress. However, Education has not yet collected 

any such state-level adequate yearly progress results and has not issued 

any guidance on how states should determine whether a student group has 

made adequate yearly progress. As a result, some states have not yet made

adequate yearly progress determinations for student groups at the state 

level. 

In order for a student group, such as students with limited English 

proficiency, to make adequate yearly progress, it must make a number of 

different goals. Specifically: 

• At least 95 percent of students in the group must take the state’s 

language arts and mathematics assessments, and 

• The student group must meet the progress goals established by the 

state for both language arts and mathematics proficiency or 

• The percentage of students who did not achieve proficient scores must 

have decreased by at least 10 percent from the previous year, and the 

student group must also meet the progress goals established by the 

state for its other academic indicator (graduation rate for high schools 

and usually attendance rate for other schools). 

Figure 7 illustrates the basic decision process for determining adequate 

yearly progress for a student group.

 1

NCLBA also requires Education to annually determine whether states have met their Title 

III goals related to increases in students making progress in learning English and attaining

English proficiency. 
Appendix II: Determining Adequate Yearly

Progress for Student Groups 

Figure 7: Process for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for a Student Group

Safe harbor: Did the 

student group meet or 

exceed goal for the other 

academic indicator?

Did the student group meet 

the state’s annual progress

goals for proficiency for both 

the state’s language arts and 

mathematics tests?

Safe harbor: Did the percentage of 

nonproficient students decrease by 

10% compared to the previous year?

Student group made AYP

Student group made AYP

 Yes

 Yes

 Yes

 No

 No

 No

Yes

 No

Were 95% of the students

tested on both the state’s

language arts and mathematics

tests?

Source: GAO analysis.

Student group did not make AYP

Because states have different assessment systems, they use different 

methods for determining adequate yearly progress. A state can have an 

assessment system that allows it to create the same progress goal for 

mathematics and language arts for all grades, despite using different tests 

in each grade. In this case, the state could review data for all students in a 

student group across the state to determine if the group met its annual 

progress goals. A state can also establish different progress goals for 

different grades or groups of grades, depending on the particular test 

being used. In this case, according to an Education official, a state would 

have to meet all the proficiency and participation goals for all the different 

grades or groups of grades in order to make adequate yearly progress. 

Page 56 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix III: Perc

AYP Goa

Limited

entage of Districts Making

ls for Mathematics for Students with

 English Proficiency 

Page 57 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 

Appendix III: Percentage of Districts Making 

AYP Goals for Mathematics for Students with 

Limited English Proficiency 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

West Virginia

Hawaii

Delaware

Texas

Georgia

North Carolina

Massachusetts

California

Illinois

Pennsylvania

Minnesota

Tennessee

Nebraska

Colorado

Oregon

Ala

Nevada

Florida

ska

Percentage of districts meeting mathematics progress goals

Source: GAO analysis of district report cards and district data provided by state officials.

Notes: Data are for school year 2003-2004. 

We requested district-level achievement data from 20 states, and 18 states responded to our request.

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

the percentage of students with limited English proficiency met a state’s mathematics progress goal if 

the student group met the goal for all grades reported. 

Results from charter schools are included when a charter school is its own school district or part of a 

larger school district. 

Hawaii only has one school district. 
Appendix IV: Pr

Mathematics T

Students 

oficiency Scores on 

ests for All Students and

with Limited English Proficiency

Page 58 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 

Appendix IV: Proficiency Scores on 

Mathematics Tests for All Students and 

Students with Limited English Proficiency 

Percentage of elementary students achieving proficient scores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Mississippi

Minnesotaa

Michigan

Massachusetts

Mar

Maine

yland

Louisiana

Kentuckya

Kansas

Iowa

Indianaa

Illinoisa

Idaho

Hawaiia

Georgia

Florida

District of Columbia

Delawarea

Connecticut

Coloradoa

Arkan

California

sas

Arizonaa

Alaska

Alabama

Source: Consolidated performance reports for the 2003-2004 school year. 

All students

Students with limited English proficiency 
Appendix IV: Proficiency Scores on 

Mathematics Tests for All Students and

Students with Limited English Proficiency

Percent of elementary students achieving proficient scores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Wyoming

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Washington

Virginiaa

Vermont

Texa

Utah

s

South Dakota

S

Rhode I

outh Carolina

sland

Pennsylvaniaa

Oregona

Oklahomaa

Ohio

North Dakota

North Carolina

New Mexico

New Jersey

New Hampshirea

Nevadaa

Nebraska

Mi

Montana

ssouri

Notes: New York and Tennessee did not provide assessment data in their state consolidated 

performance reports for the 2003-2004 school year. 

The results for Arkansas do not include those students with limited English proficiency who were 

considered proficient based on the state’s portfolio assessment. 

The total student population includes students with limited English proficiency. 

a

Most states reported assessment data for students in the fourth grade. States marked with this 

superscript reported on some other grade at the elementary school level, usually either third grade or 

fifth grade. 

Page 59 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix V: Enhanced Assessment Consortia

Participation 

Page 60 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 

Appendix V: Enhanced Assessment Consortia 

Participation 

World-Class Instructional 

Design and Assessment 

(WIDA) Consortium 

State Collaborative on

Assessment and

Student Standards 

(SCASS) Consortium 

Mountain West

Assessment

Consortium (MWAC) 

Pennsylvania Enhanced

Assessment Grant (PA 

EAG) 

Assessment Assessing Comprehension

and Communication in

English State-to-State for 

English Language Learners 

(ACCESS for ELLs) 

English Language 

Development Assessment 

(ELDA) 

MWAC Comprehensive English

Language Learning 

Assessment (CELLA) 

Consortia states 

Using assessment 

in 2005-2006 

school year 

Alabama 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Maine 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

Oklahoma 

Rhode Island

Vermont 

Wisconsin 

Iowa 

Louisiana 

Nebraska

Ohio 

South Carolina

West Virginia 

Idahoa 

New Mexicoa 

Michigan a b 

Tennessee 

Not using 

assessment in 

2005-2006 school 

year 

none Kentucky

Nevada 

North Carolina

Texas 

Alaska 

Colorado 

Montana 

Nevada

North Dakota

Utah 

Wyoming 

Florida 

Maryland 

Michiganb 

Pennsylvania 

Source: Interviews with consortia and state officials. 

Note: This table reflects states that participated in the consortia prior to or during the 2005-2006

school year. Some states are no longer consortia members. 

a

Using test items from consortium-developed assessment. 

b

Participated in more than one consortium. 
Appendix VI: English Language Proficiency 

Assessments Used in the 2005-2006 School 

Year, by State 

Page 61 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 

State English Language Proficiency Assessment 

Alabama Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA)

Alaska IDEA Proficiency Test 

Arizona Stanford English Language Proficiency Test 

Arkansas MAC II (Maculaitis Assessment of Competencies) Test of English 

Language Proficiency 

California California English Language Development Test 

Colorado Colorado English Language Assessment 

Connecticut LAS (Language Assessment System) Links

Delaware Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

District of 

Columbia 

Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

Florida Various off-the-shelf testsa 

Georgia Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

Hawaii LAS (Language Assessment System) Links

Idaho Mountain West Assessment Consortium test items 

Illinois Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

Indiana LAS (Language Assessment System) Links

Iowa English Language Development Assessment (SCASS) 

Kansas Kansas English Language Proficiency Assessment 

Kentucky 2004 IDEA Proficiency Test or Language Assessment Scales (LAS)a 

Louisiana English Language Development Assessment (SCASS) 

Maine Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

Maryland LAS (Language Assessment System) Links

Massachusetts Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment 

Michigan English Language Proficiency Assessmentb (includes Mountain 

West Consortium test items) 

Minnesota Test of Emerging Academic English, Minnesota Student Oral 

Language Observation Matrix, and checklist for reading and writing 

for K-2 students 

Mississippi Stanford English Language Proficiency Test 

Missouri MAC II (Maculaitis Assessment of Competencies) Test of English 

Language Proficiency 

Montana Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey 

(English), or other state-approved testa

Nebraska English Language Development Assessment (SCASS) 

Appendix VI: English Language Proficiency 

Assessments Used in the 2005-2006 School 

Year, by State 
Appendix VI: English Language Proficiency 

Assessments Used in the 2005-2006 School 

Year, by State 

State English Language Proficiency Assessment 

Nevada LAS (Language Assessment System) Links

New Hampshire Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

New Jersey Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

New Mexico New Mexico English Language Proficiency Assessment (includes 

Mountain West Consortium test items) 

New York New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test 

North Carolina IDEA Proficiency Test 

North Dakota 2004 IDEA Proficiency Test, Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey 

(English), and Language Assessment Scales (LAS)a

 

Ohio English Language Development Assessment (SCASS) 

Oklahoma Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

Oregon English Language Proficiency Assessmentb 

Pennsylvania Stanford English Language Proficiency Test 

Rhode Island Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

South Carolina English Language Development Assessment (SCASS) 

South Dakota Dakota English Language Proficiency assessment 

Tennessee Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (PA EAG) 

Texas Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System; consists 

of Reading Proficiency Tests in English and Texas Observation 

Protocols 

Utah 2004 IDEA Proficiency Test 

Vermont Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

Virginia Stanford English Language Proficiency Test 

Washington Washington Language Proficiency Test 

West Virginia English Language Development Assessment (SCASS) 

Wisconsin Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-toState for English Language Learners (WIDA) 

Wyoming Wyoming English Language Learner Assessment 

Source: Interviews with consortia and state officials. 

a

State allows school districts to individually choose tests. 

b

Assessments are not the same; Oregon’s is a state developed assessment, while Michigan’s is a 

combination of an augmented version of the Stanford English Language Proficiency Test and test 

items from the Mountain West Assessment Consortium. 

Page 62 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 63 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 64 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 65 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 66 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 67 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix VIII: 

A

GAO Contacts and 

cknowledgments 

Page 68 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

Marnie Shaul, (202) 512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov and Cornelia Ashby (202) 

512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov

Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Michelle St. Pierre (Analyst-inCharge) managed all aspects of this assignment. Shannon Groff, 

Eileen Harrity, and Krista Loose made significant contributions to this 

report. Katie Brillantes contributed to the initial design of the assignment. 

Carolyn Boyce, John Mingus, and Lynn Musser provided key technical 

support, James Rebbe provided legal support, and Scott Heacock assisted 

in message and report development. 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 69 GAO-06-815 No Child Left Behind Act 

Related GAO Products 

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

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

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

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

Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification 

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

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

Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention 

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

No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated 

in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved. 

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

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

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

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional 

Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School 

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

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

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

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

(130478) 
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