GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2001 PUBLIC EDUCATION

Meeting the Needs of 

Students With Limited 

English Proficiency

GAO-01-226

Page 1 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 34

Appendix II: Data on Number of Years Students Received Language 

Services in Arizona and Illinois 37

Appendix III: School Districts' Impressions of Whether OCR Conveyed 

Preferences for Type of Language Instruction 39

Appendix IV: Most School Districts That Added Bilingual Instruction 

Reported No Pressure by OCR 48

Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Education 50

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 51

Tables Table 1: Federal Education Programs That Can Provide Support Services 

to Students With Limited English Proficiency 8

Table 2: Studies of the Length of Time Children With Limited English 

Proficiency Need to Reach the Proficiency Levels of Native 

English-Speakers 17

Table 3: Amount of Time Spent in English Proficiency Programs by 

Students Who Made the Transition From Such Programs in 1998-99

21

Table 4: Amount of Time Spent in English Proficiency Programs by More 

Than Half the Students Making the Transition From Such 

Programs in Selected California School Districts, 1998-99 22

Table 5: Types of Problems Districts Reported in OCR’s Investigation 

Process 29

Table 6: OCR Headquarters Responses to Problems Identified by the 

School Districts 30

Table 7: Students Who Were Reclassified Because They Had Achieved 

“Fluent English Proficiency” in Arizona, 1998-99 37

Table 8: Transitioned Students' Years of Participation by Program Type and 

Location in Illinois, FY1999 38

Table 9: Most School Districts Reported OCR Favored No Particular Type 

of Language Program 40

Table 10: Information About 10 Districts' Decisions to Add Bilingual 

Education to Their Programs 49
Contents

Page 2 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Figures Figure 1: OCR Title VI Investigation Process in Five Cases Reviewed 11

Figure 2: The Majority of School Districts Reported OCR Favored No 

Particular Type of Language Program 26

Figure 3: Type of Language Program in School Districts Before and After 

OCR Investigation 27

Figure 4: School Districts’ Characterizations of Interactions With OCR 28

Abbreviations

EEOA Equal Educational Opportunities Act

ERIC National Educational Resources Information Center

ESL English as a second language

OCR Office for Civil Rights
Page 3 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548 Letr

February 23, 2001

The Honorable John A. Boehner

Chairman, Committee on

Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Michael N. Castle

Chairman, Subcommittee on

Education Reform

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

Over 3.4 million children with limited proficiency in English were in U.S. 

elementary and secondary schools in school year 1996-97.1

 These children 

face a double challenge: learning to speak, read, and write English as well 

as learning the content of academic subjects. America’s schools have 

achieved limited success in meeting the needs of these students, who have 

four times the dropout rate of their peers who are fluent in English, as well 

as higher grade repetition rates. Moreover, because schools often do not 

know what these students have achieved in subjects other than English, 

they may be overlooked for programs and educational services that may be 

appropriate for some of them, such as gifted and talented programs. 

Attempts to create policy and effective curricula to help solve these 

problems have been hampered by the continuing controversy about which 

approach can better meet the needs of these children—English-based or 

bilingual—and about how long special help should be given to these 

students. 

Although educating children is primarily a state and local responsibility, the 

federal government has a substantial role in ensuring that the educational 

needs of children with limited English proficiency are met—a role that is 

based on title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and court decisions 

interpreting it. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the Department of 

Education has been tasked with enforcing the rights of these students 

under title VI. Questions have been raised about whether the federal 

government is achieving the right balance between ensuring that states and 

local education agencies meet the needs of these children as defined by the 

courts and giving local districts the flexibility they need to implement 

1

This figure is the latest available estimate.
Page 4 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

programs that respond to their own unique circumstances. The Congress 

has provided oversight on this issue. In February 1998, April 1998, and June 

1999, two separate subcommittees of the House Committee on Education 

and the Workforce held hearings on bilingual education and oversight of 

the Department of Education’s OCR. During these hearings, questions were 

raised about whether OCR had pressured school districts it had 

investigated to implement bilingual approaches—teaching students in 

native-language-based programs—to educate students with limited English 

proficiency. As a result of your long-standing concerns and issues raised at 

these hearings, you asked us to answer the following questions:

• How long do children with limited English proficiency need to become 

proficient in English?

• What approaches are used to teach children with limited English 

proficiency, and how long do students remain in language assistance 

programs?

• What are the requirements for children with limited English proficiency 

that OCR expects school districts to meet, how are they set forth, and 

what has been the nature of the interactions between OCR and school 

districts in those instances in which OCR has entered into an agreement 

with the school district concerning language assistance programs?

To answer the first question, we reviewed available studies on secondlanguage learning and talked to experts in the field.2

 To answer the second 

question, we reviewed the literature, spoke to experts, and reviewed 

Education’s survey data. In addition, we contacted 12 states with 

substantial concentrations of students with limited English proficiency, 6 of 

which—Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas, and Washington—had 

information on the length of time students spent in language assistance 

programs. We also conducted site visits in 10 school districts (2 in each 

state) in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Texas to obtain 

information on teaching approaches used. These states have large or 

growing populations of children with limited English proficiency. To 

answer the third question, we interviewed OCR officials; reviewed case law 

2

We conferred with a number of experts on second-language learning, searched relevant 

education research databases, and reviewed the following National Research Council 

report: Diane August and Kenji Hakuta, eds., Improving Schooling for Language-Minority 

Children: A Research Agenda (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997) to identify 

relevant studies that appeared to meet our criteria. Ultimately, we reviewed and analyzed 70 

studies, program evaluations, and published articles concerning second-language learning 

and eliminated all but the three that met our criteria.
Page 5 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

and OCR memos regarding students with limited English proficiency; 

reviewed one case related to students with limited English proficiency in 

each of five states: Colorado, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and 

Texas;3

 and surveyed all 293 school districts that had entered into 

corrective action agreements with OCR from 1992 through 1998 to provide 

services to students with limited English proficiency.4 Of these, 245 (84 

percent) responded. Appendix I provides additional information about our 

methodology. We conducted our work between September 1999 and 

January 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.

Results in Brief No clear consensus exists on the length of time children with limited 

English proficiency need to become proficient in English. Several factors 

make it difficult to generalize about how much time is needed. First, the 

two main categories of instructional approaches used to teach children are 

designed to take different lengths of time, from 2 to 3 years for Englishbased approaches to much longer for approaches that make extensive use 

of a child’s native language. Second, no agreement exists about how 

proficiency should be defined or measured. Conversational skills may be 

developed within 2 years, while achieving broader academic proficiency, 

such as the ability to read or communicate abstract ideas at grade level, 

may take several years more.5

 Third, even if there were agreement on 

instructional approaches and the meaning of proficiency, individual 

differences among children and their family situations make 

generalizations difficult. Finally, very few studies have focused specifically 

3

We chose these states to ensure that we included the greatest number of regional offices 

when selecting cases to review from the list you provided us of 15 cases in which you were 

interested.

4

OCR began using its automated data system in 1992. When we began our study, the latest 

year for which we could obtain information was 1998.

5

See, for example, James Cummins, “The Role of Primary Language Development in 

Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students,” Schooling and Language 

Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework, developed by the California State Department 

of Education, Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education (Los Angeles, Calif.: California State 

University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center); Kenji Hakuta, Yuko Goto 

Butler, and Daria Witt, “How Long Does It Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency?”

Policy Report No. 2000-1 (Palo Alto, Calif.: University of California Linguistic Minority 

Research Institute, 1999); and Barry McLaughlin, Second-Language Acquisition in 

Childhood: Volume 2—School Age Children, 2nd ed. (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates, 1985).
Page 6 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

on how long students need to attain English proficiency. Of the 70 studies 

we reviewed, only 3 both addressed this topic and met the other criteria for 

inclusion in our analysis.6 These three studies assessed students in Englishbased programs and found that it may take 4 to 8 years to develop the 

language skills needed to perform on a par with native English-speakers in 

all core academic subject areas (reading, language arts, social studies, 

science, and mathematics). However, some researchers have concluded 

that fewer years are needed.7

Of the two main instructional approaches, English-based instruction is 

more common than instruction in which a student’s native language is used 

(hereafter referred to as bilingual education). Three-fourths of the nation’s 

children with limited English proficiency attend schools where both 

instructional approaches are used. National data on the length of time 

students spend in language assistance programs are not available. 

However, we identified six states that collected such information at the 

state level. Taken together, most students in these six states spent 4 years 

or less in these programs; however, the proportion of students in the 

individual states spending 4 years or less in these programs varied from 46 

to 90 percent. 

In addition to the challenge of determining how best to meet the needs of 

children with limited English proficiency, school districts are also required 

to ensure that English-language instruction is adequate and to provide 

these children with equal educational opportunities, as required under title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act. OCR has adopted procedural requirements and 

criteria for judging the adequacy of local English-language instruction 

programs in meeting those needs. In three policy documents issued 

between 1970 and 1991, OCR set forth requirements that school districts 

must meet to pass a three-pronged test established by the courts. When the 

adequacy of local English-language instruction programs is questioned, 

OCR investigates, and, if problems are found, it enters into an agreement 

with the district specifying how the district will address the issues. Most 

6

To be included in our analysis, a study had to (1) focus on the length of time children need 

to become proficient in English, (2) reach specific conclusions about the length of time 

needed, (3) have English as the second language learned by the students, and (4) involve 

original research supported by published data.

7

See, for example, Keith Baker, “What Bilingual Education Research Tells Us,” The Failure of 

Bilingual Education, Jorge Amselle, ed. (Washington, D.C.: Center for Equal Opportunity, 

1996), and Christine H. Rossell and Keith Baker, Bilingual Education in Massachusetts: The 

Emperor Has No Clothes (Boston, Mass.: Pioneer Institute, 1996).
Page 7 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

school districts that were involved in these agreements between 1992 and 

1998 (77 percent) reported that in their interactions with OCR regional 

staff, OCR did not appear to favor any particular approach to Englishlanguage instruction or pressure the districts to adopt a particular 

approach. Moreover, they reported that OCR staff were generally courteous 

and attempted to minimize the disruptions to the districts’ operations 

resulting from their visits and inquiries. However, some school districts 

reported specific problems related to their interactions with OCR. The two 

most frequently reported problems were districts’ feeling pressure to 

change aspects of their programs not related to the instruction approach, 

such as the way they identify students in need of services, and untimely or 

inadequate communications by OCR with school districts. The districts 

also made suggestions for how OCR could improve its relations with school 

districts in areas such as minimizing data requests and being clear about 

when the period for monitoring the implementation of the corrective action 

plan would end. OCR headquarters officials have acknowledged that 

problems have occurred and have told us that some of the concerns 

identified by the districts have already been identified by OCR. These 

officials have presented us with a set of specific actions they are taking to 

address problem areas, such as working more collaboratively with school 

districts during investigations to alleviate pressure and limiting the amount 

of data they request from school districts.

Background States and localities play the principal role in educating all students, 

including those with limited English proficiency, with most states providing 

supplemental aid specifically to address the special needs of these 

students. According to a November 1997 report (the latest available) by the 

Institute for Research in English Acquisition and Development, 39 states 

have some form of regulations targeting these students, ranging from a 

mandate in Texas that school districts provide bilingual instruction in at 

least some grades to a mandate in California that school districts provide 

instruction only in English.

For the past 30 years, the federal government has served students with 

limited English proficiency primarily through title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act.8

 The Bilingual Education Act, enacted in 1968, 

also serves a small percentage of these students under a supplemental 

8

Public Education: Title I Services Provided to Students With Limited English Proficiency 

(GAO/HEHS-00-25, Dec. 10, 1999).
Page 8 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

grant program that assists local school districts in teaching students who 

do not know English. Other programs that may address, at least in part, the 

educational needs of children with limited English proficiency include the 

Emergency Immigrant Education Program, the Migrant Education 

Program, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education 

Act programs, and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 

programs (see table 1). The only programs that serve primarily children 

with limited English proficiency are those associated with the Bilingual 

Education Act. 

Table 1: Federal Education Programs That Can Provide Support Services to Students With Limited English Proficiency

a

Other federal programs may also support services to students with limited English proficiency if these 

students qualify to receive services under the programs’ guidelines for participation.

Programa

FY 2000 

funding 

(estimate)b Description

Education for Disadvantaged Children (title I, 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act)

(20 U.S.C. 6300)

$8.7 billion Helps educationally disadvantaged children succeed in 

school. Students with limited English proficiency may 

participate in this program if they come from disadvantaged 

backgrounds and are at risk of failing in school or if they 

attend a school that has a schoolwide program.

Bilingual Education Act programs (instructional 

services, support services, training grants, and 

immigrant education)

(20 U.S.C. 7401-91)c

248 million Helps ensure that students with limited English proficiency 

master English and develop high levels of academic 

attainment in content areas. Provides both state and local 

grants.

Emergency Immigrant Education Program

(20 U.S.C. 7541-49)

150 million Provides grants to school districts with unexpectedly large 

increases in their student population due to immigration.

Migrant Education Program

(20 U.S.C. 6391-99)

355 million Provides funds to states to help educate the children of 

migrant agricultural workers, including migratory fishers and 

dairy workers.

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 

Education Act programs (basic state grants, Indian and 

Hawaiian natives set-aside, territorial set-asides, 

technical-preparation education, tribally controlled 

postsecondary vocational institutions, research, and 

National Occupational Information Coordination 

Committee)

(20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.)

1.5 billion Provides funds to improve the quality of vocational education 

and to provide access to vocational training to special 

populations, such as disadvantaged and disabled students.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act programs 

(grants to states; preschool grants; grants for infants 

and families; state improvement, research, and 

innovation; technical assistance and dissemination; 

personnel preparation; parent information centers; and 

technology and media)

(20 U.S.C. 1400 )

5.1 billion Supports special education for infants, toddlers, children, and 

youth with disabilities.
Page 9 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

b

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 

Office, 2000).

c

These are the only programs that target all their benefits to students with limited English proficiency.

Federal policy for ensuring equal educational opportunity for children with 

limited English proficiency has been largely shaped by title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), and 

related court decisions. Title VI bans discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal 

financial assistance. In Lau v. Nichols,9

 the Supreme Court held that a 

school district’s failure to provide English-language instruction to nonEnglish-speakers violated title VI.10 Like title VI, the EEOA also protects the 

civil rights of students with limited English proficiency. Under the EEOA, it 

is unlawful for an educational agency to fail to take “appropriate action to 

overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students 

in instructional programs.”

11 In 1981, a federal court of appeals decision, 

Castaneda v. Pickard,12 created a test for evaluating the adequacy of a 

school district’s approach to addressing the needs of its non-Englishspeaking students and limited-English-speaking students.13 The 

Department of Education uses the test set forth in the Castaneda decision 

as the basis for determining whether a school district program for serving 

students with limited English proficiency is complying with title VI. 

9

414 U.S. 563 (1974).

10Because the case established children with limited English proficiency as a protected 

group under title VI, the investigations OCR conducts regarding the rights of children with 

limited English proficiency are frequently referred to as Lau investigations. In reaching its 

conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld a May 25, 1970, Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare memorandum still used by OCR today. 

1120 U.S.C. 1703.

12648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981) . 

13The court created this test on the basis of language in the EEOA.
Page 10 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Education’s OCR has 12 regional 

offices that enforce title VI and other civil rights statutes.14 In the five cases 

we reviewed, OCR initiated investigations independently15 or after deciding 

that a complaint brought by an individual or group met certain criteria.16 To 

determine which school districts had potential problems with their 

programs and therefore warranted a compliance review, OCR gathered and 

analyzed statistical data and other information from state education 

agencies, advocacy groups, parents, and OCR surveys. Once OCR selected 

a school district for review, it requested data from the school district and, if 

necessary, conducted on-site visits to schools in the district. If OCR found a 

school district was not in compliance with civil rights laws, it worked with 

the district to negotiate an agreement on the problems and the steps 

required to address those problems (the corrective action plan). During the 

period in which OCR monitored the implementation of the corrective 

action plan, school districts periodically submitted information to OCR 

regarding their programs for children with limited English proficiency. 

Figure 1 shows the title VI investigative process used by OCR in the five 

cases we reviewed in depth.

14In addition to title VI, OCR enforces section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, title II of 

the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 

and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.

15An investigation initiated by OCR is called a compliance review. A compliance review 

assesses whether a school district is in compliance with the requirements of title VI.

16According to the Investigation Procedures Manual, for OCR to begin an investigation, a 

complaint must contain the name and address of the complainant; identify the person or 

group injured by the alleged discrimination; identify the program or activity alleged to have 

discriminated; describe the discrimination in sufficient detail; say when it occurred; be in 

writing; and be signed. In addition, OCR must establish that the program or activity receives 

federal financial assistance and the type of discrimination alleged, and that the complaint is 

timely.
Page 11 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Figure 1: OCR Title VI Investigation Process in Five Cases Reviewed

Source: GAO analysis.
Page 12 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

In November 1994, OCR changed the procedural guidance it followed from 

the Investigation Procedures Manual to the Case Resolution Manual. OCR 

officials told us that since about 1995 they have implemented a more 

cooperative approach to their reviews. Under this approach, OCR has 

focused on finding early resolutions to problems and working 

cooperatively throughout the process with school district and state 

officials. Also, under this approach, a letter of findings is issued only when 

problems remain unresolved. 

Length of Time Needed 

for Proficiency 

Depends on Many 

Factors

No clear consensus exists among researchers and educators on the length 

of time needed for children with limited English proficiency to become 

proficient in English. Four factors make generalizations difficult: (1) 

differences in instructional approaches used to teach children English and 

the quality of that instruction, (2) differences in the ways states measure 

proficiency, (3) differences in student characteristics, and (4) the lack of 

definitive research on this issue.

Types of Language 

Assistance for Students 

With Limited English 

Proficiency Vary

Two basic approaches are used to instruct students with limited English 

skills. One uses English and makes little use of a student’s native language 

(English-based approach), while the other makes much more extensive use 

of a student’s native language, often for a number of years (bilingual 

approach). Proponents of an English-based approach expect children to 

learn English fairly quickly, in 2 to 3 years. For example, in Monroe County, 

Florida, one of the districts we visited, elementary school children with 

limited English proficiency receive all formal content area instruction in 

English, alongside their English-fluent peers. District officials told us they 

chose this English-based approach in part because they believe children 

learn English more quickly when they are immersed in it. On average, 

elementary school students enrolled in the district’s English-language 

acquisition programs receive services for 3 years. 

The bilingual approach is designed to take much longer—often 5 years or 

more. While bilingual programs vary in both their goals and length, those 

programs that promote native-language literacy as well as English-language 

literacy may take 5 to 7 years to complete. For example, the San Antonio 

School District develops early literacy in Spanish, beginning with 

prekindergarten instruction. The program is designed to simultaneously 

develop English literacy, with a full transition to English-only instruction by 

the sixth grade. District officials said they believe it is important to develop 

bilingual citizens in a city that has a long bilingual tradition. Most of the 
Page 13 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

city’s population is Hispanic, and a large proportion of the city’s residents 

speak both Spanish and English.

The National Research Council has determined that there is “little value in 

conducting evaluations to conclude which type of program is best. The key 

issue is not finding a program that works for all children and all localities, 

but rather finding a set of program components that works for the children 

in the community of interest, given that community’s goals, demographics, 

and resources.”

17

Whether a school district chooses an English-based or bilingual approach 

to teaching students with limited English proficiency, instructional quality 

will ultimately affect children’s academic achievement. Characteristics that 

contribute to high-quality programs, according to some educators, include 

adequately trained teachers, clearly articulated goals, systematic 

assessments, and opportunities for children to practice their English.18 In 

our site visits, for example, we visited one classroom in Cicero, Illinois, in 

which a bilingual education teacher who had been recruited from a 

Spanish-speaking country was using audiotapes to teach students English 

during the daily period dedicated to learning English. The students listened 

and followed along in their workbooks as a speaker on the tape read them 

a children’s story in English. There was no interaction between the teacher 

and the students. In contrast, in a Key West, Florida, classroom we visited, 

the bilingual education classroom teacher did not use audiotapes but 

instead read aloud a children’s story to his students. This teacher paused 

frequently to quiz the students on what they had heard. This activity not 

only gave the teacher an opportunity to see what his students understood 

of the story but also gave the students an opportunity to speak and practice 

English.

States Define Proficiency 

Differently

No clear consensus exists about how proficiency should be defined or 

measured. Educators and researchers have observed that children who 

speak little or no English may develop “verbal proficiency”—that is, 

conversational skills on a par with those of their English-speaking peers—

17August and Hakuta, eds., Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children.

18Kenji Hakuta, Supplemental Declaration in Plaintiff’s Legal Brief Requesting Preliminary 

Injunction on Proposition 227, U.S. District Court, San Francisco, the Honorable Charles A. 

Legge presiding, July 15, 1998, and Charles Glenn, “Rethinking Bilingual Education,” Agenda 

for Leadership 1998, Gabriela Mrad, ed. (Boston, Mass.: Pioneer Institute, 1998). 
Page 14 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

in 2 years or less. Broader “academic proficiency,” such as the reading and 

communicating of abstract ideas required for grade-level academic 

performance, can take several more years to acquire.

Little agreement exists on an appropriate standard against which English 

proficiency should be measured. Some educators and language experts 

believe that a child should perform at age- or grade-appropriate levels in 

reading and other core academic subjects on standardized tests performed 

in English before the child can be considered English-proficient. This 

means that the child should score at or above the 50th percentile on a 

standardized achievement test.19 In contrast, some states consider students 

English-proficient when they score at the 40th percentile or even at the 

32nd. Some critics question the validity of using these types of standardized 

achievement tests to measure whether a student’s achievement in English 

is better than, the same as, or worse than that of other children in his or her 

age group. These critics argue that a student’s performance on these tests 

does not necessarily reflect mastery or lack of mastery of certain English 

skills because the tests are designed to assess a student’s mastery of other 

subjects.

Performance on standardized achievement tests is just one of several 

criteria states and districts may use to determine if a child is proficient in 

English. We found that in Rockford, Illinois, officials combined the results 

of an academic achievement test, English proficiency tests, and an 

academic review conducted by school and district officials to determine a 

child’s English proficiency level. In contrast, we found that in Texas 

students could be considered proficient by scoring at or above the 40th 

19However, students whose native language is English can also post scores that are below 

the cutoff score. For example, during our site visit, the deputy superintendent of the Denver 

Public Schools pointed out that 40 percent of his students did not score above the cutoff 

score (40 percent) set by the courts and used by OCR. He said that insofar as the students 

with limited English proficiency shared the characteristics of those low-performing nativeEnglish-speakers, they might never reach the required scores on the standardized tests. The 

deputy superintendent did not think students should be in bilingual classes “forever.”
Page 15 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

percentile on both the English reading and language arts sections of a stateapproved norm-referenced academic assessment.20

Time Needed to Attain 

Proficiency Can Vary With 

Student Characteristics

Research indicates that the length of time needed to become proficient in 

English can vary from child to child. It can be affected by such factors as 

the child’s age, socioeconomic background, and amount of formal 

schooling already received in another language. For example, a 1997 study 

concluded that the most striking feature about learning a second language 

is the variability in outcomes.21 A frequently cited factor is a child’s age. 

Older children generally make faster initial progress than very young 

children do. For example, a study of students with limited English 

proficiency attending school in Fairfax County, Virginia, found that 

students who arrived in this country between ages 8 and 11 needed 5 to 7 

years to compete with native speakers in all subject areas, while children 

who arrived when they were aged 4 to 7 needed 7 to 10 years. Researchers 

have proposed that this difference perhaps reflects the fact that older 

learners have developed more sophisticated language and thinking skills 

before beginning to learn English.22 Educators have also observed that 

students with prior formal schooling and higher socioeconomic 

backgrounds tend to learn a second language more easily. Other 

characteristics tied to differences in success rates include the amount of 

exposure students have already had to English; the level of parental 

support they have at home; and their classroom, school, and community 

environments. Any of these factors could affect how long students need to 

catch up with native speakers. 

20Norm-referenced academic assessments are constructed to yield a measure of relative 

performance of the individual or group by comparison with the performance of other 

individuals or groups taking the same test. For example, fourth-graders taking a 

mathematics test that has national norms would have their scores reported in terms of the 

scores of other fourth-graders who took that test, so their performance could be compared 

with that of fourth-graders nationally. In school year 2000-01, the list of approved 

assessments in Texas included the TerraNova (CTBS/5), the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the 

Iowa Tests of Educational Development, the Metropolitan Achievement Test, and the 

Stanford Achievement Tests.

21August and Hakuta, eds., Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children. 

22Virginia Collier, “The Effect of Age on Acquisition of a Second Language for School,” New 

Focus (winter 1987-88).
Page 16 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Research on Time Needed 

to Attain Proficiency Is Not 

Definitive

While many evaluations of programs serving children with limited English 

proficiency have been conducted, we identified very few that focused 

specifically on the length of time students need to become proficient in 

English. Our review of existing research yielded three studies that met the 

following criteria: (1) they addressed the acquisition of English rather than 

other languages, (2) they focused specifically on the length of time required 

to become proficient, (3) they reached a specific conclusion about the 

length of time needed to become proficient in English (as described in app. 

I), and (4) they had been published. Two of these studies were carried out 

in Canada and one in the United States (see table 2). The students in each 

of these studies were schooled primarily in English. In general, the studies 

concluded that children with limited English proficiency need 4 years or 

more to develop the language skills needed to perform in academic subject 

areas on a par with native English-speakers. However, with so few studies 

available, the results should not be viewed as definitive,23 and other 

researchers in the field have challenged some of the results.24

23While children may require many years to achieve a degree of proficiency at which they 

can perform academically at age- and grade-appropriate levels, we are not implying that 

they will require targeted language assistance—either in English-based or native-languagebased programs—in a classroom separate from their peers during this entire period of time. 

Some education experts have suggested that children may need language assistance for 

substantially less time than is needed to reach academic proficiency. 

24See, for example, Keith Baker, “What Bilingual Education Research Tells Us,” and 

Christine H. Rossell and Keith Baker, Bilingual Education in Massachusetts.
Page 17 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Table 2: Studies of the Length of Time Children With Limited English Proficiency 

Need to Reach the Proficiency Levels of Native English-Speakers

a

James Cummins, “Age on Arrival and Immigrant Second Language Learning in Canada: A 

Reassessment,” Applied Linguistics, Vol. 11, No. 2 (summer 1981), pp. 132-49.

b

Virginia P. Collier, “Age and Rate of Acquisition of Second Language for Academic Purposes,” TESOL

Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1987), pp. 617-41, and Virginia P. Collier and Wayne P. Thomas, “How 

Quickly Can Immigrants Become Proficient in School English?” The Journal of Educational Issues of 

Language Minority Students, Vol. 5 (fall 1989), pp. 26-39.

c

Harold Klesmer, “Assessment and Teacher Perceptions of ESL Student Achievement,” English 

Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3 (spring 1994), pp. 8-11.

The three studies we identified examined students’ progress in English 

with respect to two different sets of skills. The two Canadian studies 

focused on language skills alone, examining the point at which students’

scores on tests of vocabulary, auditory perception, and other language 

skills approached those of native English-speakers. The Fairfax County 

study focused on students’ academic achievement in English, measuring 

the point at which students’ performance on tests in reading, mathematics, 

and other subjects, given in English, began to approach that of nativeEnglish-speaking students. The Fairfax study showed that children took 

longer to reach grade norms in reading than in other subjects. For example, 

even among the highest performing subgroup of children (those who 

arrived in this county between ages 8 and 11), the performance in different 

subject areas varied widely, averaging 2 years to reach national norms in 

mathematics, 3 years in language arts, and 5 years or more in reading. 

Study Measure of proficiency

Length of time needed to 

reach proficiency levels of 

native English-speakers

Toronto 

(Canada) Board 

of Educationa

Grade-level norms on English 

vocabulary and language competency 

tests

At least 5 years

Fairfax County 

(Virginia) School 

Districtb

Grade-level norms on academic 

achievement tests in all areas 

(reading, language arts, social 

studies, science, and mathematics 

[given in English])

At least 4 to 8 years 

North York 

(Canada) Board 

of Educationc

Age-level norms on tests measuring 

English speaking, listening, reading, 

and writing skills

At least 6 years
Page 18 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

English-Based 

Approaches 

Predominate; In the Six 

States Reviewed, Most 

Children Receive 

Services for 4 Years or 

Less

English-based instruction is more commonly found in the nation’s public 

schools than bilingual instruction is. However, most students with limited 

English proficiency attend schools in which both approaches are used. In 

the six states we reviewed, most children received services for 4 years or 

less.

English-Based Approaches 

Are More Common Than 

Bilingual Approaches

More children with limited English proficiency receive instruction through 

an English-based approach than through an approach that makes use of 

their native language, according to data from the Department of 

Education’s most recent survey on the subject.25 About 76 percent of 

students with limited proficiency in English receive English-based 

instruction (such as English as a second language [ESL]); 40 percent 

receive bilingual instruction aimed at teaching subject matter in the 

student’s home language (such as teaching math in Spanish); and slightly 

fewer, 37 percent, receive instruction aimed at maintaining or improving 

fluency in their home language (such as Spanish language lessons for 

Spanish speakers.)26

The Education survey, which covered the 1993-94 school year, also asked 

schools about the types of instructional programs they offer and found that 

more schools offer English-based programs than bilingual programs. For 

example, about 85 percent of schools enrolling students with limited 

English proficiency offer ESL programs, and about 36 percent offer 

bilingual programs in which the student’s native language is used to varying 

degrees.27 Nearly three-fourths of all children with limited English 

25U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Profile of 

Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students: Screening Methods, Program 

Support, and Teacher Training (SASS 1993-94) (NCES 97-472) (Washington, D.C.: 

Department of Education, Jan. 1997). 

26Percentages do not total 100 because students could, and often did, receive more than one 

type of instruction during a school day.

27Percentages do not total 100 because about one-third of all schools offer both ESL and 

bilingual programs.
Page 19 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

proficiency attend schools with both types of programs. We visited 10 

school districts in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Texas and 

found that 6 of the 10 used both English-based and bilingual instruction.

The survey also found that students often receive more than one type of 

instruction during a school day. For example, ESL is often a component of 

programs classified as bilingual education programs—that is, although 

explanations and some content areas may be taught in the student’s native 

language, ESL techniques may be used to teach English. However, the 

study’s data were not collected in a way that would allow accurate 

estimates of the proportion of students who received a combination of 

services. 

Determining the type of instruction students actually receive is more 

complicated than these results would indicate for two reasons. First, the 

instructional approaches used to teach children with limited English 

proficiency are far more varied than the categories typically used to 

capture this information. For example, a program model called “structured 

immersion” uses simplified English to teach subject matter and sometimes 

allows for the teacher’s use of students’ native language for clarification. 

While clearly not a bilingual approach, some might classify this approach 

with English-based approaches, such as ESL; others might classify it as a 

distinct third approach that makes limited use of students’ native language. 

Second, the broad program labels used by educators may not reflect actual 

classroom practices. For example, in the Monroe School District, Florida, 

we observed a language arts class designed to teach ESL to Spanishspeaking students. Normally, such an approach would involve little or no 

use of Spanish. In this case, however, the teacher was not only specially 

trained to teach English language arts to speakers of other languages, but 

also fluent in Spanish. She provided instruction first in English and then 

translated much of that instruction into Spanish. 
Page 20 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Most Children in the Six 

States Reviewed Spend 4 

Years or Less in Programs 

Aimed at Increasing English 

Proficiency

We found no national data on the length of time children with limited 

English proficiency actually spend in programs aimed at helping them 

become proficient in English. Thus, we contacted education agencies in 12 

states with substantial concentrations of students with limited English 

proficiency to collect any available state-level data on this issue.28 Of the 12 

states contacted, 6 had information on the length of time children with 

limited English proficiency spent in language assistance programs. Data 

from these six states—Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas, and 

Washington—indicate that in 1998-99 (the latest year for which data are 

available), the majority of children with limited English proficiency who 

made the transition from English-language programs spent 4 years or less 

in language assistance programs.29 As table 3 shows, at least two-thirds of 

the children in Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and Washington made the 

transition from programs within 4 years. In Arizona and Texas, the portion 

that made the transition within 4 years was lower: closer to one-half. In five 

states, 12 percent or fewer of the children were out within 1 year. In the 

sixth state—New Jersey—about one-third exited within 1 year. At the other 

end of the scale, 10 percent of the students with limited English proficiency 

in New Jersey spent 5 years or more in programs, while 41 percent of such 

students in Arizona spent more than 5 years.

28Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, New York, Texas, and Washington.

29“Making the transition” generally means that these children met the program’s criteria for 

proficiency.
Page 21 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Table 3: Amount of Time Spent in English Proficiency Programs by Students Who 

Made the Transition From Such Programs in 1998-99

a

Percentages are cumulative.

b

Appendix II contains data for Arizona students receiving language assistance services for as long as 

13 years.

c

Appendix II contains additional analyses of years of participation in language assistance programs by 

type of program (bilingual or ESL).

d

Ten percent of New Jersey students with limited English proficiency who exited a program in school 

year 1998-99 had been enrolled in language assistance programs for 5 years or more. The percentage 

of students staying 5 years or less cannot be determined. 

e

Data are based on a 5-year study of children with limited English proficiency enrolled in Texas public 

schools between 1992-93 and 1996-97. The percentage of students staying beyond 5 years cannot be 

determined.

f

These percentages include students who graduated from high school but may not have met program 

exit criteria.

g

Washington reported that 14 percent of students spent more than 5 years in the program. These 

percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.

California, with about 40 percent of the nation’s students with limited 

English proficiency in 1996-97,30 did not have statewide data that could be 

used to determine how long children were spending in its programs. To 

provide an indication of what was happening there, we obtained data from 

four large school districts with large numbers of students with limited 

English proficiency: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Ana, and San Diego 

(see table 4).

State

Percentagea

 of students who spent . . .

1 year or

less

2 years or

less

3 years or

less

4 years

or less

5 years or

less

Arizona 12.0 24.0 36.0 49.0 59.0b

Florida 10.0 23.0 39.0 66.0 79.0

Illinoisc 0.1 23.0 40.0 67.0 86.0

New Jersey 29.0 57.0 78.0 90.0 d

Texas 10.0 21.0 37.0 57.0 e

Washingtonf 17.0 36.0 57.0 77.0 87.0g

30Reynaldo F. Macias, Summary Report of the Survey of the States’ Limited English 

Proficient Students and Available Educational Program and Services (Washington, D.C.: 

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, George Washington University, 1998).
Page 22 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Table 4: Amount of Time Spent in English Proficiency Programs by More Than Half 

the Students Making the Transition From Such Programs in Selected California 

School Districts, 1998-99

a

Data are for school year 1999-2000.

Because of the limited number of states and school districts from which the 

data were drawn, these results should be interpreted cautiously. 

Differences in the way these states and school districts define proficiency 

for exiting such programs, as well as the types of tests used to measure 

proficiency, make direct comparisons across states and districts nearly 

impossible. In addition, districts may also decide on their own whether to 

apply additional criteria beyond the requirements set by their states. 

Moreover, in June 1998, California passed Proposition 227, mandating 

English-based instruction in California public schools (although waivers 

have been granted under this system, and bilingual programs still operate 

in some California public schools). This new requirement may have an 

impact on future data coming from these districts. 

As school districts address the various challenges associated with meeting 

the educational needs of children with limited English proficiency, districts 

are also required to provide these children equal educational opportunities 

under title VI of the Civil Rights Act. We now focus on the requirements 

that Education’s OCR expects school districts to meet and how OCR 

interacted with school districts whose language assistance programs it 

investigated from 1992 to 1998.

OCR’s Interactions 

With School Districts 

Were Generally 

Positive; Some Specific 

Problems Reported

During the 6 years covered by our review, OCR relied on the three policy 

documents regarding children with limited English proficiency discussed 

below. These documents incorporate the Castaneda decision’s threepronged test for assessing the adequacy of programs for students with 

limited English proficiency to determine whether school districts are in 

District Time spent 

Los Angeles 5 years or more

San Francisco 5 years or less

Santa Anaa 5 years or less

San Diego 7 years or more
Page 23 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

compliance with title VI.31 OCR did not promulgate Castaneda’s

requirements as regulations, instead setting them forth in policy 

documents.32 OCR used compliance reviews to monitor school districts’

compliance with these requirements. School districts that were found out 

of compliance with the title VI requirements were required to enter into 

negotiated agreements with OCR to correct their programs for students 

with limited English proficiency.

Our survey and case reviews of school districts involved in negotiated 

agreements resulting from OCR’s compliance reviews between 1992 and 

1998 revealed that the interaction between OCR and school districts has 

been generally positive. A majority of districts indicated that OCR regional 

staff did not favor, or pressure them to adopt, a particular language 

approach, and almost all of the 245 respondents indicated that OCR was 

courteous and minimized disruption of daily activities when visiting school 

districts. However, some school officials reported problems in their 

interactions with OCR, most frequently related to feeling pressured to 

change aspects of their programs not related to the language approach 

used and to OCR’s untimely or inadequate communication with school 

districts. 

OCR’s Title VI Requirements 

Are Set Forth in Three 

Policy Documents

Castaneda set forth a three-part test for determining whether a school 

district has adopted a satisfactory method for teaching children with 

limited English proficiency. The federal courts and OCR now generally 

accept this test as a threshold for determining compliance with title VI. The 

test is based on a combination of education theory, practice, and results 

and requires that school district programs (1) be based on sound 

educational principles, (2) effectively implement the educational 

principles, and (3) have succeeded in alleviating language barriers.

OCR requirements for title VI compliance are articulated through three 

policy documents known as the May 1970 memorandum, the December 

31As of December 2000, OCR was still using this test.

32OCR officials said that they disseminated information about a school district’s 

requirements for serving students with limited English proficiency through workshops, 

conferences, meeting with state agencies, written materials, and technical assistance 

activities. In December 1999, OCR made available another resource for understanding title 

VI requirements—Programs for English Language Learners: Resource Materials for 

Planning and Self Assessments—available on the Internet at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/ELL.
Page 24 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

1985 memorandum, and the September 1991 policy update. The May 1970 

memorandum required school districts to meet four basic criteria for title 

VI compliance:

• districts must take “affirmative steps” to rectify the language deficiency 

of students with limited English proficiency;

• students may not be designated as academically deficient on the basis of 

English language skills;

• the school system’s tracking system for students with limited English 

proficiency must be designed to meet their needs as soon as possible, 

and it must not work to lock students into a particular curriculum; and

• schools must notify parents of school activities in a language they can 

understand.

The second document, the December 1985 memorandum, stipulates that 

OCR does not require schools to adopt any particular educational or 

language-teaching approach and that OCR will determine title VI 

compliance on a case-by-case basis. Any sound educational approach that 

ensures the effective participation of students with limited English 

proficiency is acceptable. The December memorandum also outlines steps 

OCR staff should take to determine whether there is a need for an 

alternative language program for students with limited English proficiency 

and whether the district’s program is adequate for meeting the needs of 

these students. 

The September 1991 policy update provides additional guidance for 

applying the May 1970 and December 1985 memorandums. The 1991 

document describes the legal standard set forth by the court in Castaneda

and therefore contains more specific standards for staffing requirements, 

criteria for student completion of language assistance programs, and 

program evaluation. Policy issues related to access to special education 

programs and gifted/talented programs, as well as OCR’s policy with regard 

to segregation of students with limited English proficiency, are also 

highlighted in this update. 

OCR Staff Generally Did Not 

Pressure Districts to Adopt 

a Bilingual Approach and 

Were Courteous and 

Professional

Over three-fourths of the school districts responding to our survey (77 

percent) reported that when investigating cases OCR staff did not appear to 

favor bilingual instruction over English-based instruction. For example, 

one school district noted that OCR staff made no mention of bilingual 

instruction as a recommendation, but rather they emphasized meeting the 

needs of students with limited English proficiency. But three districts felt 
Page 25 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

pressure to increase emphasis on bilingual instruction.33 While most school 

districts indicated that OCR appeared to be neutral regarding instructional 

approach, about 18 percent reported OCR favored the bilingual approach 

and about 4 percent reported that OCR favored English-based instruction 

(see fig. 2). The 38 districts that reported that OCR favored bilingual 

education were located in every OCR region except for Region 6 (the 

District of Columbia regional office). More than half of these districts had 

cases that were handled by either the San Francisco or Denver regional 

office, two regions that serve almost half the students with limited English 

proficiency. (See app. III for more detailed information on the cases related 

to students with limited English proficiency by district, the percentage of 

students in each of the regions, and the districts’ views about whether OCR 

favored a particular approach.) 

33Two districts in California that had both bilingual and English-only programs before the 

OCR investigation reported that they felt pressure to increase emphasis on the bilingual 

approach. One district in Oklahoma that had an English-only program before the OCR 

investigation felt pressure to add bilingual instruction to its program.
Page 26 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Figure 2: The Majority of School Districts Reported OCR Favored No Particular Type 

of Language Program

In addition, in the school districts investigated by OCR, the kind of program 

offered after the corrective action plan had been implemented changed 

little. Further, some school district officials indicated that OCR did not 

influence the type of language assistance program implemented. Figure 3 

shows the distribution of the instructional approaches school districts 

offered before and after OCR investigation. (See app. IV for further details.) 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No Particular Bilingual English-Based Other

Type

77

18

4

1

Percentage

Type of Language Program Favored by OCR
Page 27 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Figure 3: Type of Language Program in School Districts Before and After OCR 

Investigation

Overall, school districts reported that their interactions with OCR staff 

during investigations were positive in three areas: courtesy, minimization 

of disruption of daily activities, and consideration of the rationale for the 

school district’s existing program (see fig. 4).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

English-Based English-Based Bilingual

and Bilingual

52 53

42

40

4 5

Before OCR Investigation

After OCR Investigation

Percentage

Type of Program
Page 28 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Figure 4: School Districts’ Characterizations of Interactions With OCR 

In comments written on their questionnaires, 13 school districts reported 

that services to students with limited English proficiency had improved as 

a result of OCR’s investigation. For example, one respondent indicated that 

OCR had pointed out identification and assessment procedures that the 

school district had not previously implemented, and that, as a result of the 

OCR investigation, improved procedures were adopted. In addition, some 

respondents called OCR’s approach “collaborative” or “professional.”

Similarly, during our site visits, officials in two school districts noted that 

their interactions with OCR staff were positive. For example, one 

superintendent said that OCR staff were very professional, the goal of both 

OCR staff and school officials during the investigation was to meet the 

needs of students with limited English proficiency, and the students had 

benefited from OCR’s assistance. In another school district, officials told us 

that OCR staff were pleasant and cordial and that they showed an interest 

in how the district was delivering alternative language services to children 

with limited English proficiency. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Considering

Rationale

Minimizing

Disruption

Being

Courteous

Percentage

Very Good/Good Poor/Very Poor

Dimensions of Interactions

89

4

81

5

75

5
Page 29 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Some School Districts 

Reported Problems With 

OCR’s Investigation

As part of our survey, we gave school district officials the opportunity to 

make suggestions on how OCR could improve its investigation procedures 

and to offer any additional comments about OCR’s investigation of their 

school district. Of the 245 questionnaires returned by school districts, 

almost half (47 percent) contained comments on what OCR could do to be 

more effective or improve its investigative process, and over half (53 

percent) made additional comments about OCR’s investigation of their 

school district. Although district officials generally reported positive 

interactions between their school district and OCR, some respondents 

commented on the types of problems they encountered during OCR’s 

investigation process. We sorted these problems into seven categories and 

have listed them in table 5 in descending order of the frequency of the 

comments. Several of the problems reported in the survey comments also 

surfaced in our case investigations. 

Table 5: Types of Problems Districts Reported in OCR’s Investigation Process 

Problem type

Number of

districts

reporting

problem Specific example cited 

OCR “applied pressure.” 50 OCR told districts that federal funds would be taken away if districts did not 

comply with OCR’s recommendations, used attorneys in negotiations, and 

was inflexible during negotiations with school districts.

OCR’s communications were 

untimely or inadequate. 

40 OCR did not provide enough feedback on data and reports submitted; 

several districts reported that OCR took as long as a year to give districts 

feedback on data and reports.

Districts lacked sufficient resources 

to address problems. 

26 Several districts commented that they were unable to successfully recruit 

qualified bilingual teachers, particularly in rural areas.

OCR made burdensome data 

requests.

22 One official reported that it took over 600 staff-hours to collect the data 

requested by OCR.

OCR investigators lacked 

educational expertise in a variety of 

areas.

20 OCR teams were not knowledgeable in language instruction or acquisition, 

state bilingual mandates, bilingual program operations, or school district 

operations.

OCR was not clear enough about 

case closure practices.

20 OCR was not clear about when and under what circumstances it would 

close a district’s case.

State and federal requirements 

differed.

17 Districts in California, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Jersey, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington cited examples suggesting 

that conflicts existed between state and federal requirements and that the 

lack of coordination between OCR and state agencies had been 

problematic for the district. 
Page 30 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Some districts suggested that OCR could address some of these issues by 

ensuring that communications were timely, providing more feedback in 

response to submitted reports, understanding the constraints within which 

districts have to operate, attempting to minimize paperwork requirements, 

including educators on OCR’s investigative teams, and being clear about 

when the monitoring period would end and the case would be closed. In 

addition, some districts suggested that OCR should work more closely with 

state education agencies and involve the state in the early stages of the 

investigations to deal with situations in which state guidance differs from 

federal guidance on meeting the needs of students with limited English 

proficiency. 

We asked OCR headquarters officials to respond to the problems school 

districts identified. In doing so, OCR headquarters officials indicated that 

OCR had also identified some of the issues and that it, in conjunction with 

regional office staff, was already taking the following steps to address them 

(see table 6).

Table 6: OCR Headquarters Responses to Problems Identified by the School Districts

Problem type OCR response

OCR “applied pressure.” Although OCR is increasingly working in collaboration with school districts and reviews are now partnershiporiented, it is still OCR’s responsibility to ensure that school districts comply with the law.

OCR’s communications 

were untimely or 

inadequate. 

OCR examines how long cases are taking to resolve and works with the field offices to correct problems if 

cases are not being resolved in a timely manner. Also, OCR now maintains closer contact with school 

districts during the investigation and the monitoring period, as required in the Case Resolution Manual.

Districts lacked sufficient 

resources to address 

problems.

Serving students with limited English proficiency takes time and costs money. OCR attempts to be flexible 

with school districts. For example, in the negotiated agreements, OCR gives school districts time to hire the 

necessary qualified teachers. In some cases, OCR has worked with universities to put teacher-training 

programs into place; it has also worked to increase certification opportunities for teachers.

OCR made burdensome 

data requests.

OCR is refining its approach to data requests. Having moved to the Case Resolution Manual, OCR’s 

emphasis is now on resolving compliance issues in partnership with school districts instead of on making 

findings. This often results in less burdensome data requests. 

OCR investigators lacked 

educational expertise in a 

variety of areas. 

OCR is addressing this issue through conferences for OCR enforcement staff. OCR has established 

employee groups organized by subject matter to discuss policy and legal decisions related to students with 

limited English proficiency. Through these groups, guest speakers and other resources are now readily 

available. In addition, the Lau Articulation Project produced a list of educational resources that OCR 

enforcement staff use.

OCR was not clear 

enough about case 

closure practices.

Although negotiated agreements do not specify when the monitoring period will end, the agreements discuss 

evaluation expectations. OCR is working on building appropriate evaluation measures into the agreements. 

OCR is also holding discussions with school districts to identify those that are successful in helping students 

with limited English proficiency and to share their practices with other school districts.
Page 31 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Concluding 

Observations

Policymakers are faced with particularly difficult decisions with regard to 

students with limited English proficiency because their needs are varied 

and experts disagree about the best methods to teach them. Moreover, 

there is no clear time line for acquiring English proficiency. Even though 

different approaches to English language instruction may be effective, 

many variables may influence the choice of program used by a school, such 

as the percentage of students with limited English proficiency, the number 

of languages spoken by students, and students’ family backgrounds. As a 

result, local decisions about the amount of time needed to attain 

proficiency and the amount of language support that should be provided 

may differ.

Available research does not definitively indicate the best teaching methods 

to use or the amount of time support should be provided. However, 

guidance from OCR provides the framework and standards that school 

districts must meet to ensure that students with limited English proficiency 

have a meaningful opportunity to participate in public education. School 

districts have the flexibility to select methods of instruction that they deem 

will produce the best results for their students, so long as they meet OCR 

requirements.

We found that when OCR followed up on complaints or engaged in 

compliance reviews, for the most part, it worked effectively with districts. 

Moreover, few districts changed their approach to teaching students with 

limited English proficiency after OCR investigations. There have been 

some problems, however, with OCR’s working relationships with districts, 

which OCR acknowledges and is taking steps to improve. 

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Education 

generally agreed with its findings and said it was particularly gratified by 

the survey results (see app. V). Education also provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

State and federal 

requirements differed.

Where federal and state requirements differ for students with limited English proficiency, OCR staff discuss 

the issues with state education officials. Also, state education officials accompany OCR staff on some 

reviews. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Problem type OCR response
Page 32 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Roderick R. Paige, 

Secretary of Education; appropriate congressional committees; and other 

interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me on 

(202) 512-7215. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed 

in appendix VI. 

Marnie S. Shaul

Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues
Page 33 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency
Page 34 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidxeiIs

To determine how long students with limited English proficiency need to 

become proficient in English, we identified potential studies for review and 

selected studies that met four criteria. To ensure quality and relevance, the 

study had to (1) focus on the length of time children need to become 

proficient in English, (2) reach a specific conclusion about the length of 

time, (3) have English as the second language learned by the students, and 

(4) involve original research supported by published data.

We identified potential studies for review by searching two national 

databases for information on second-language learning—the National 

Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (Department of Education) and the 

National Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)—and by 

contacting experts to obtain both their recommendations on research 

regarding second-language learning and information on any research they 

might have conducted on second-language learning. We contacted the 

following.

• Mr. Jorge Amselle, Executive Director, Center for Equal Opportunity, 

Washington, D.C.

• Dr. Keith Baker, Education Consultant

• Dr. James Cummins, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

• Dr. Russell Gersten, University of Oregon

• Dr. Kenji Hakuta, Stanford University

• Dr. Stephen Krashen, University of Southern California

• Dr. Rosalie Porter, Editor, READ Perspectives

• Dr. Christine Rossell, Boston University

• Dr. J. David Ramirez, California State University Long Beach

We also reviewed research summaries, including Improving Schooling for 

Language-Minority Children: A Research Agenda, by the National Research 

Council, National Academy of Sciences (1997). We also used the 

bibliographies of all the studies we identified and reviewed to obtain 

additional relevant research. From these efforts, we obtained over 70 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 35 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

published articles and other reports that appeared relevant and reviewed 

each of them. Only three met all four of our selection criteria.1

To determine what approaches are used to teach children with limited 

English proficiency, we reviewed the literature, spoke with experts, and 

reviewed the results of survey data collected by the Department of 

Education.2

 We also obtained information on the approaches used in 10 

school districts we visited in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and 

Texas—states with large or growing populations of students with limited 

English proficiency. To determine how long students remained in language 

assistance programs, because national data are not available, we contacted 

12 states in spring 2000, each with over 40,000 students who have limited 

English proficiency or with populations of such students constituting over 

9 percent of the student population (that is, states with substantial 

concentrations of students with limited English proficiency): Alaska, 

Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, 

New Mexico, New York, Texas, and Washington. We obtained state-level 

data from the six states that had such data: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New 

Jersey, Texas, and Washington. Although no state data were available for 

California, we did obtain data from four districts in that state: Los Angeles, 

San Francisco, and San Diego for school year 1998-99 and Santa Ana for 

school year 1999-2000 (the only data available). 

To determine the requirements for children with limited English 

proficiency that the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights 

(OCR) expects school districts to meet and how they are set forth, we 

interviewed OCR officials, searched the Education Web site, and reviewed 

OCR policy documents and case law regarding students with limited 

English proficiency. To determine the nature of the interactions between 

OCR and school districts in those instances in which OCR has entered into 

an agreement with the school district concerning language assistance 

1

James Cummings, “Age on Arrival and Immigrant Second Language Learning in Canada: A 

Reassessment,” Applied Linguistics, Vol. 11, No. 2 (summer 1981); Virginia P. Collier, “Age 

and Rate of Acquisition of Second Language for Academic Purposes,” TESOL Quarterly; 

Virginia P. Collier and Wayne P. Thomas, “How Quickly Can Immigrants Become Proficient 

in School English?” The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students; and 

Harold Klesmer, “Assessment and Teacher Perceptions of ESL Student Achievement,”

English Quarterly.

2

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Profile of Policies 

and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students: Screening Methods, Program 

Support, and Teacher Training (SASS 1993-94).
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 36 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

programs, we investigated 5 of the 15 cases suggested by your staff in 

California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Texas. We also 

surveyed 293 school districts listed by OCR as having entered into 

corrective action agreements with OCR for providing services to students 

with limited English proficiency from 1992 through 1998. Of the 293, 245 

responded (84 percent). We also reviewed the transcripts of three 

congressional hearings before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Youth, and Families of the Committee on Education and the Workforce:

• Bilingual Education Reform, San Diego, Calif., February 18, 1998. Serial 

No. 105-75

• Reforming Bilingual Education, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1998. Serial 

No. 105-101

• The Review and Oversight of the Department of Education's Office for 

Civil Rights, Washington, D.C., June 22, 1999. Serial No. 106-49

We also contacted Mr. James M. Littlejohn of Jim Littlejohn Consulting, The 

Sea Ranch, California. Mr. Littlejohn worked for OCR for 27 years. From 

1981 to 1993, he was policy director of OCR in Washington and, according 

to the director of the Denver Regional Office, during the years covered by 

our study, Mr. Littlejohn trained most of the OCR investigators in how to 

properly conduct a Lau investigation (those title VI investigations related to 

children with limited English proficiency). He retired from OCR in 1996 and 

now works as a consultant to school systems around the country and on 

several federal court cases involving bilingual education. Mr. Littlejohn was 

a key information source for the Committee, testifying and providing key 

analyses.3

3

Jim Littlejohn, Federal Control Out of Control: The Office for Civil Rights' Hidden Policies 

on Bilingual Education (Washington, D.C.: Center for Equal Opportunity, Nov. 1998).
Page 37 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Appendix II

Data on Number of Years Students Received 

Language Services in Arizona and Illinois ApendxiI

Arizona was the only state we reviewed that had detailed breakdowns by 

year on how long students who had received bilingual or English-as-asecond-language (ESL) services did so before making the transition out of 

these services (see table 7).

Table 7: Students Who Were Reclassified Because They Had Achieved “Fluent 

English Proficiency” in Arizona, 1998-99

Source: Report of the superintendent of public instruction to the Arizona legislature: English 

Acquisition Services: A Summary of Bilingual and English as a Second Language Programs for School 

Year 1998–99.

Years students received ESL

or bilingual services

Cumulative percentage of students

achieving English proficiency

1 11.8

2 23.6

3 36.4

4 48.8

5 59.2

6 67.8

7 75.7

8 81.0

9 86.1

10 92.8

11 96.4

12 98.4

13 100.0
Appendix II

Data on Number of Years Students Received 

Language Services in Arizona and Illinois

Page 38 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Illinois was the only state that had data broken down by type of program 

(ESL or bilingual) (see table 8).

Table 8: Transitioned Students' Years of Participation by Program Type and Location in Illinois, FY1999

a

In Illinois these programs are called Transitional Programs of Instruction.

b

Percentages were calculated on the basis of the total number of students who made the transition out 

of services (15,778).

Source: Illinois State Board of Education.

Years in program

Transitional bilingual education programs ESL programsa

Chicago Rest of the state Chicago Rest of the state 

Number Percentageb Number Percentageb Number Percentageb Number Percentageb

Less than 1 132 0.84 434 2.75 40 0.25 623 3.95

1 to 2 600 3.8 623 3.95 100 0.63 1,015 6.43

2 to 3 1,030 6.53 677 4.29 217 1.38 844 5.35

3 or more 6,211 39.36 1,669 10.58 537 3.40 1,026 6.5

Total 7,973 3,403 894 3,508
Page 39 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Appendix III

School Districts' Impressions of Whether OCR 

Conveyed Preferences for Type of Language 

Instruction ApendxiI

We asked school district officials to answer the following question: “Did 

OCR staff, as a whole, convey the impression that they favored Englishonly instruction, they favored bilingual education, they favored another 

language program, or they were neutral on the question?”

Of the 225 districts responding, 77 percent replied that OCR did not convey 

an impression that it favored any particular type of instruction. However, 

23 percent indicated that OCR did convey a preference:

• 18 percent indicated that, in their opinion, OCR favored bilingual 

education;

• 4 percent indicated that, in their opinion, OCR favored English-only 

instruction; and

• 1 percent indicated that, in their opinion, OCR favored another type of 

language program. (See table 9.)
Appendix III

School Districts' Impressions of Whether 

OCR Conveyed Preferences for Type of 

Language Instruction

Page 40 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Table 9: Most School Districts Reported OCR Favored No Particular Type of Language Program 

Regional 

percentage of 

national total of 

students with 

limited English 

proficiency School district

Did OCR staff as a whole, convey the impression that they ...

Favored

English-only

education?

Favored

bilingual

education?

Favored

another

language

program?

Were neutral on

the question?

OCR's Region 1—Boston

2.3 Bristol School District, CT X

Danbury School District, CT X

East Hartford School District, CT X

New Britain School District, CT X

Stratford School District, CT X

West Hartford School District, CT X

Lowell School District, MA X

Quincy School District, MA X

Revere School District, MA X

Somerville School District, MA X

Manchester School District, NH X

Pawtucket School District, RI X

Providence School District, RI X

Woonsocket School District, RI X

OCR's Region 2—New York

7.9 Atlantic City, NJ X

Linden City, NJ X

Newark City, NJ X

Passaic City, NJ X

Brentwood Unified School District, NY X

Mineola Unified School District, NY X

Ossining Unified School District, NY X

Port Chester-Rye Unified School 

District, NY X

Westbury Unified School District, NY X

OCR's Region 3—Philadelphia

2.0 Jefferson County, KY X

Avon Grove School District, PA X

Central York School District, PA X

Gettysburg Area School District, PA X
Appendix III

School Districts' Impressions of Whether 

OCR Conveyed Preferences for Type of 

Language Instruction

Page 41 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Neshaminy School District, PA X

Upper Adams School District, PA X

West York Area School District, PA X

OCR's Region 4—Atlanta

8.2 DeKalb County School District, GA X

Gwinnett County School District, GA X

Aiken County School District, SC X

Beaufort County School District, SC X

Charleston County School District,

SC X

Greenville County School District, SC X

Pickens County School District, SC X

Richland School District 01, SC X

Nashville-Davidson County School 

District, TN X

Rutherford County School District, 

TN X

Shelby County School District, TN X

OCR's Region 5—Dallas

16.3 Orleans Parish School Board, LA X

DeSoto County School District, MS X

Blackwell, OK X

Oklahoma City, OK X

Stillwater, OK X

Anna Independent School District, TX X

Corpus Christi Independent School 

District, TX X

Donna Independent School District, 

TX X

Fort Worth Independent School 

District, TX X

Lubbock Independent School District, 

TX X

McAllen Independent School District, 

TX X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Regional 

percentage of 

national total of 

students with 

limited English 

proficiency School district

Did OCR staff as a whole, convey the impression that they ...

Favored

English-only

education?

Favored

bilingual

education?

Favored

another

language

program?

Were neutral on

the question?
Appendix III

School Districts' Impressions of Whether 

OCR Conveyed Preferences for Type of 

Language Instruction

Page 42 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

OCR's Region 6—Washington, D.C.

1.0 District of Columbia Public Schools, 

DC X

Harnett County Schools, NC X

Yadkin County Schools, NC X

OCR's Region 7—Chicago

5.6 Aurora East Unit School District 1, IL X

School District 46, IL X

School City of East Chicago, IN X

Elkhart Community Schools, IN X

Fort Wayne Community Schools, IN X

Gary Community School Corp., IN X

School City of Hobart, IN X

Indianapolis Public Schools, IN X

Lake Station Community School, IN X

MSD Lawrence Township, IN X

Merrillville Community School, IN X

MSD Perry Township, IN X

MSD Pike Township, IN X

River Forest Community School 

County, IN X

South Bend Community School Corp., 

IN X

MSD Warren Township, IN X

MSD Washington Township, IN X

Whiting School City, IN X

Faribault, MN X

Willmar, MN X

Racine School District, WI X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Regional 

percentage of 

national total of 

students with 

limited English 

proficiency School district

Did OCR staff as a whole, convey the impression that they ...

Favored

English-only

education?

Favored

bilingual

education?

Favored

another

language

program?

Were neutral on

the question?
Appendix III

School Districts' Impressions of Whether 

OCR Conveyed Preferences for Type of 

Language Instruction

Page 43 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

OCR's Region 8—Cleveland

1.4 Bloomfield Hills School District, MI X

Capac Community School District, MI X

Dearborn City School District, MI X

East Lansing School District, MI X

Farmington Public School District, MI X

Ferndale Public Schools, MI X

Flint City School District, MI X

Hazel Park City School District, MI X

Oak Park City School District, MI X

Pontiac City School District, MI X

School District City of Royal Oak, MI X

Southfield Public School District, MI X

Troy School District, MI X

Walled Lake Consolidated School 

District, MI X

West Bloomfield School District, MI X

South-Western City School District, 

OH X

OCR's Region 9—Kansas City

1.5

Columbus Community School District, 

IA X

Des Moines Independent Community 

School District, IA X

Muscatine Community School District, 

IA X

South Tama County Community 

School District, IA X

Storm Lake Community School 

District, IA X

Washington Community School 

District, IA X

West Liberty Community School 

District, IA X

Dodge City, KS X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Regional 

percentage of 

national total of 

students with 

limited English 

proficiency School district

Did OCR staff as a whole, convey the impression that they ...

Favored

English-only

education?

Favored

bilingual

education?

Favored

another

language

program?

Were neutral on

the question?
Appendix III

School Districts' Impressions of Whether 

OCR Conveyed Preferences for Type of 

Language Instruction

Page 44 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Emporia, KS X

Garden City, KS X

Holcomb, KS X

Junction City, KS X

Kansas City, KS X

Kismet-Plains, KS X

Liberal, KS X

Shawnee Mission Public Schools, KS X

Wichita, KS X

Winfield, KS X

McDonald County R-1, MO X

University City, MO X

Lincoln Public Schools, NE X

Grand Island Public Schools, NE X

Madison Public Schools, NE X

Mitchell Public Schools, NE X

Scottsbluff Public Schools, NE X

South Sioux City Public Schools, NE X

Hill City 51-2, SD X

OCR's Region 10—Denver

7.5 Nogales Unified District, AZ X

Washington Elementary District, AZ X

Yuma Elementary District, AZ X

Alamos RE-11J, CO X

Brighton 27J, CO X

Brush RE-2(J), CO X

Colorado Springs 11, CO X

Durango 9-R, CO X

Gilcrest RE-1, CO X

Ignacio 11JT, CO X

Johnstown-Milliken RE-5J, CO X

Lamar RE-2, CO X

Mesa County Valley 51, CO X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Regional 

percentage of 

national total of 

students with 

limited English 

proficiency School district

Did OCR staff as a whole, convey the impression that they ...

Favored

English-only

education?

Favored

bilingual

education?

Favored

another

language

program?

Were neutral on

the question?
Appendix III

School Districts' Impressions of Whether 

OCR Conveyed Preferences for Type of 

Language Instruction

Page 45 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Pueblo City 60, CO X

Roaring Fork RE-1, CO X

Sierra Grande R-30, CO X

Weld County RE-8, CO X

Westminster 50, CO X

Artesia Public Schools, NM X

Espanola Municipal Schools, NM X

Famington Municipal Schools, NM X

Gallup-McKinley County Schools, NM X

Hobbs Municipal Schools, NM X

Las Cruces Public Schools, NM X

Portales Municipal Schools, NM X

Silver City Consolidated Schools, NM X

Davis School District, UT X

Duchesne School District, UT X

Granite School District, UT X

Jordan School District, UT X

Ogden School District, UT X

Washington School District, UT X

OCR's Region 11—San Francisco

41.0 Alameda City Unified, CA X

Atwater Elementary, CA X

Beaumont Unified, CA X

Bellevue Union Elementary, CA X

Brawley Union High, CA X

Burbank Unified, CA X

Cajon Valley Union Elementary, CA X

Centralia Elementary, CA X

Chino Unified, CA X

Colton Joint Unified, CA X

East Side Union High, CA X

Empire Union Elementary, CA X

Franklin-McKinley Elementary, CA X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Regional 

percentage of 

national total of 

students with 

limited English 

proficiency School district

Did OCR staff as a whole, convey the impression that they ...

Favored

English-only

education?

Favored

bilingual

education?

Favored

another

language

program?

Were neutral on

the question?
Appendix III

School Districts' Impressions of Whether 

OCR Conveyed Preferences for Type of 

Language Instruction

Page 46 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Fremont Union High, CA X

Fresno Unified, CA X

Golden Plains Unified, CA X

Grant Joint Union High, CA X

Hacienda La Puente Unified, CA X

Hanford Joint Union High, CA X

Inglewood Unified, CA X

Lindsay Unified, CA X

Lynwood Unified, CA X

Manteca Unified, CA X

Merced City Elementary, CA X

Milpitas Unified, CA X

Monterey Peninsula Unified, CA X

Moreland Elementary, CA X

Moreno Valley Unified, CA X

Napa Valley Unified, CA X

Newport-Mesa Unified, CA X

Norwalk-La Mirada Unified, CA X

Ocean View Elementary, CA X

Ojai Unified, CA X

Orange Center Elementary, CA X

Orland Joint Unified, CA X

Porterville Elementary, CA X

Poterville Union High, CA X

Roseland Elementary, CA X

Saddleback Valley Unified, CA X

San Rafael City Elementary, CA X

San Rafael City High, CA X

Santa Ana Unified, CA X

Santa Cruz City Elementary, CA X

Santa Cruz City High, CA

Sweetwater Union High, CA X

Ventura Unified, CA X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Regional 

percentage of 

national total of 

students with 

limited English 

proficiency School district

Did OCR staff as a whole, convey the impression that they ...

Favored

English-only

education?

Favored

bilingual

education?

Favored

another

language

program?

Were neutral on

the question?
Appendix III

School Districts' Impressions of Whether 

OCR Conveyed Preferences for Type of 

Language Instruction

Page 47 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

West Covina Unified, CA X

Winters Joint Unified, CA X

OCR's Region 12—Seattle

5.0 Aberdeen School District 58, ID X

Blackfoot School District 55, ID X

Emmett School District 221, ID X

Glenns Ferry Joint School District 

192, ID

X

Idaho Falls School District 91, ID X

Jefferson County Joint School District 

251, ID

X

Minidoka County Joint School District 

331, ID X

Nampa School District 131, ID X

Snake River School District 52, ID X

Twin Falls School District 411, ID X

Douglas County School District, NV X

Elko County School District, NV X

Central School District 13J, OR X

Hillsboro School District 01J, OR X

Medford School District 549, OR X

Newberg School District 29J, OR X

Clover Park, WA X

Federal Way, WA X

North Franklin, WA X

Pasco, WA X

Pullman, WA X

Shoreline, WA X

Spokane, WA X

Vancouver, WA X

Wahluke, WA X

Yakima, WA X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Regional 

percentage of 

national total of 

students with 

limited English 

proficiency School district

Did OCR staff as a whole, convey the impression that they ...

Favored

English-only

education?

Favored

bilingual

education?

Favored

another

language

program?

Were neutral on

the question?
Page 48 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Appendix IV

Most School Districts That Added Bilingual 

Instruction Reported No Pressure by OCR ApendxiIV

We asked school districts a number of questions about the type of program 

they had that was specifically designed to meet the English-language needs 

of students with limited English proficiency (solely bilingual education, 

English-only instruction, both bilingual and English-only instruction, or 

another type of language program) before and after the OCR investigation. 

We also asked about any changes in the type of program used by the district 

as a result of OCR actions.

Ten school districts added bilingual instruction to their English-language 

learning program after OCR intervention. Of these, six indicated that before 

OCR's investigation they had not planned to change the type of language 

program they used; three indicated that before the OCR investigation they 

had planned to change the type of program they used and that the changes 

that resulted from OCR's investigation were consistent with the changes 

they had planned to make; and one district did not indicate whether or not 

it had planned to change the type of language program used before the OCR 

investigation. One of the 10 school districts indicated that it felt pressured 

by OCR to change the type of language program it was using.

Our analysis indicated that of the 89 school districts that indicated they had 

English-only programs before OCR's investigation, 

• 10 added bilingual education to their English-only programs and

• no school district changed from English-only to solely bilingual. 

Table 10 lists these 10 school districts and their corresponding OCR 

regional offices and provides details about the changes made in the 

districts' English-language acquisition programs.
Appendix IV

Most School Districts That Added Bilingual 

Instruction Reported No Pressure by OCR

Page 49 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Table 10: Information About 10 Districts' Decisions to Add Bilingual Education to 

Their Programs 

a

This district had planned no change.

District

Planned change 

before OCR 

investigation

Change consistent 

with planned 

change

Change due 

to pressure 

by OCR

Region 2—New York

New York City Board of 

Education, NY No response a No

Region 5—Dallas

Blackwell Public Schools, 

OK No a Yes

Region 8—Cleveland

Toledo Public Schools, OH No a No

Region 9—Kansas City

Washington Community 

School District, IA No a No

Garden City Unified 

School District #457, KS No a No

Region 10—Denver

Jefferson County Public 

Schools, CO No a No

Washington School District 

#6, AZ Yes Yes No

Region 11—San 

Francisco

Winters Joint Unified 

School District, CA No a No

Region 12—Seattle

Medford School District, 

OR Yes Yes No

Vancouver School District 

No. 37, WA Yes Yes No
Page 50 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Appendix V

Comments From the Department of 

Education ApendxiV
Page 51 GAO-01-226 Students With Limited English Proficiency

Appendix VI

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contacts Eleanor L. Johnson, (202) 512-7209

Benjamin F. Jordan, Jr., (202) 512-4876

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Malcolm Drewery, Behn Miller, Ellen 

Soltow, and Virginia Vanderlinde made key contributions to this report.

(104983) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00