No Child Left Behind Act: Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds
Published: 2006-12-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) designates federal funds to support the education of students with limited English proficiency and provides for formula-based grants to states. This report describes the data the Education Department used to distribute Title III funds and the implications of data measurement issues for the two allowable sources of data-- American Community Survey (ACS) and state assessment data--for allocating funds across states. In addition, the report describes changes in federal funding to support these students under NCLBA and how states and school districts used these funds as well as Education's Title III oversight and support to states. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed documentation on ACS and state data, interviewed federal and state officials, and collected data from 12 states, 11 districts, and 6 schools.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funds, but measurement issues with both ACS and state data could result in funding differences. Education used ACS data primarily because state data were incomplete. In September, Education officials told us they were developing plans to clarify instructions for state data submissions to address identified inconsistencies. While Education officials expected their efforts to improve the quality of the data, they told us that they had not established criteria or a methodology to determine the relative accuracy of the two data sources. State data represent the number of students with limited English proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency, and ACS data are based in part on responses to subjective English ability questions from a sample of the population. ACS data showed large increases and decreases in numbers of these students from 2003 to 2004 in part due to sample size. ACS data and state counts of students with limited English proficiency for the 12 study states differed. GAO's simulation of the distribution of Title III funds for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 based on these numbers showed that there would be differences in how much funding states would receive. In fiscal year 2006, Congress authorized over $650 million in Title III funding for students with limited English proficiency--an increase of over $200 million since fiscal year 2001 under NCLBA. This increase in funding as well as the change in how funds are distributed--from a primarily discretionary grant program to a formula grant program--contributed to more districts receiving federal funding to support students with limited English proficiency since the enactment of NCLBA. States and school districts used Title III funds to support programs and activities including language instruction and professional development. Education provided oversight and support to states. Officials from 5 of the 12 study states reported overall satisfaction with the support from Education. However, some officials indicated that they needed more guidance in certain areas, such as developing English language proficiency assessments that meet NCLBA's requirements. Education is taking steps to address issues states identified.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: An estimated 5 million students with limited English proficiency were  enrolled in the nation’s public schools in the 2003-04 school year, and this  population has been growing. Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of  2001 (NCLBA) designates federal funds to support the education of  students with limited English proficiency. We addressed how states can  better measure the progress of these students in our July 2006 report.  NCLBA, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,  provides for formula-based grants to states, replacing the discretionary  grants authorized under Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act  of 1994. In particular, under NCLBA, the Secretary of Education is  required to base the distribution of funds on the more accurate of two  allowable sources of data on the population of children and youth with  limited English proficiency and immigrants: the Bureau of the Census’  (Census) American Community Survey (ACS) data or state-collected data.  However, questions have been raised about data measurement issues,  such as what the data are designed to measure and how that measurement  occurs, that affect the data the Department of Education (Education) can  use to distribute Title III funds. Congress is interested in the implications  of using each of the two data sources to distribute these funds as well as  other issues related to serving students with limited English proficiency. In  response to congressional interest we agreed to answer the following  questions: 1) What data does Education use to distribute Title III funds and  what are the implications of data measurement issues for the two  allowable sources of data for allocating funds across states? 2) How have  the level and distribution of federal funds to support students with limited  English proficiency changed under NCLBA? 3) How do states and school  districts use Title III funds? 4) How has Education provided oversight and  support to help states meet Title III requirements?
In doing our work we used a variety of methodological approaches. To  address how data measurement issues affect the distribution of Title III  funds to states and to determine the implications of these issues, we  reviewed documentation and literature about ACS data, including prior  GAO reports, and interviewed Census officials knowledgeable about ACS.  We also analyzed information in 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation  Reports and Consolidated State Performance Reports for the 2003-04 and  2004-05 school years—the most recent years for which these reports were  available—for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We  analyzed the data that states reported related to the number of students  with limited English proficiency and recent immigrant students. We  selected 12 states and collected data related to students with limited  English proficiency and those students classified as recent immigrants. To  assess the reliability of state data, we interviewed knowledgeable state  officials about data quality control procedures and potential limitations of  these data and data systems. We also reviewed relevant documents. We  determined that the data obtained from these states related to students  with limited English proficiency were sufficiently reliable for our  purposes. The selected states have large or growing populations of these  students, are geographically diverse, and represent more than 75 percent  of both Title III funding and the population of students with limited  English proficiency. We visited 6 of the 12 states—Arizona, California,  Florida, Illinois, Nevada, and Texas—and called officials in the other 6  states—Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and  Washington. We simulated the distribution of Title III funds to the 12  states based on state-reported data and compared the results to the actual  distribution for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years. To address the  second and third questions, we used information from the states’ Biennial  Evaluation Reports, including information on the number of subgrantees  receiving Title III funds in each state and how states used Title III funds.  We also gathered in-depth information on funding and programs that  support students with limited English proficiency from the12 study states.  We reviewed Education documents and interviewed Education officials,  including officials from the Office of English Language Acquisition, the  Office of Budget Service, and the National Center for Education Statistics,  to obtain information about funding distribution and Education’s support  to states. In addition, we met with officials in 11 school districts and 1  school in each of these districts to collect in-depth information on how  funds were used in the 6 states we visited. Finally, to complete the answer  to the question relevant to Education’s oversight and support, we reviewed  the guidance Education has issued on Title III and analyzed Education’s 21  Title III monitoring reports completed as of September 30 and states’  responses to these reports as available. We also interviewed state officials  in our 12 study states. We conducted our work from December 2005 to  September 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Since the 1960’s, the federal government has provided resources to  support the education of students with limited English proficiency.  Federal funding has supported school districts, colleges and universities,  and research centers to assist students in attaining English proficiency and  in meeting academic standards. In addition to federal funding, state and  local agencies provide significant funding to support the education of  these students. The evolving educational standards movement and NCLBA  have reshaped how the federal government views and supports programs  for elementary and secondary school students whose native language is  not English.
Prior to Title III of NCLBA, federal funding provided under Title VII of the  Improving America’s Schools Act supported services for students with  limited English proficiency. Both Title III and Title VII were designed to  target students with limited English proficiency, including immigrant  children and youth, supporting these students in attaining English  proficiency and meeting the same academic content standards all students  are expected to meet. However, Title III differs from Title VII in terms of  funding methods and requirements for academic standards and English  language proficiency standards and assessments. In particular, Title III  provides for formula-based grants whereas Title VII provided funds  primarily through discretionary grants. Title III also requires states to have  English language proficiency standards that are aligned with the state  academic content standards, in addition to annually assessing the English  language proficiency of students having limited English proficiency. GAO  reported on the academic achievement of these students and the validity  and reliability of assessments used to measure their performance. We  recommended that Education undertake a variety of activities to help  states better measure the progress of these students under NCLBA.
Title VII authorized various discretionary grants to eligible states, school  districts, institutions of higher education, or community-based  organizations to, among other things, assist with the development of  instructional programs for students with limited English proficiency.  Under Title VII, colleges and universities also could apply for grants to  provide professional development programs on instructional and  assessment methodologies and strategies as well as resources specific to  limited English proficient students for teachers and other staff providing  services to these students. Title VII also required that funds be set aside  for the establishment and operation of a national clearinghouse for  information on programs for students with limited English proficiency. In  addition, Title VII offered a formula grant program to support enhanced  instructional opportunities in school districts that experienced  unexpectedly large increases in their immigrant student population. States  with districts that had large numbers or percentages of immigrant students  were eligible to receive funds under this program.
subsections: section_title: Distribution of Title III Funds
paragraphs: In contrast to Title VII, Title III of NCLBA requires Education to allocate  funds to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico based on a  formula incorporating the population of children with limited English  proficiency and the population of immigrant children and youth in each  state (relative to national counts of these populations). Specifically, funds  are to be distributed to states as follows    80 percent based on the population of children with limited English    20 percent based on the population of recently immigrated children and  youth (relative to national counts of these populations).
NCLBA provides that Education is to determine the number of children  with limited English proficiency and immigrant children and youth using  the more accurate of two data sources: the number of students with  limited English proficiency who are assessed under NCLBA for English  proficiency, or data from ACS, which is based on responses to a series of  relevant questions.
Education allocates these funds after making certain reservations. For  example, each fiscal year Education must reserve 0.5 percent or $5 million,  whichever is greater, for providing grants to schools and other eligible  entities that support language instruction educational projects for Native  American children (including Alaska Native children) with limited English  proficiency. Also, a reservation of 6.5 percent is made to support activities  including the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition  and Language Instruction Educational Programs and to provide grants for  professional development to improve educational services for children  with limited English proficiency. Institutions of higher education in  consortia with school districts or state educational agencies may apply for  these discretionary grants.
Once states receive Title III funds from Education, they are allowed to set  aside up to 5 percent of these funds for certain state-level activities,  including administration. In addition, Title III requires each state to use up  to 15 percent of its formula grant to award subgrants to its school districts  with significant increases in school enrollment of immigrant children and  youth, before distributing the remainder across school districts in  proportion to the number of students with limited English proficiency.
section_title: School Districts’ Uses of Title III Funds
paragraphs: School districts are required to use Title III funds to provide scientifically  based language instruction programs for students with limited English  proficiency and to provide professional development to teachers or other  personnel. School districts may also use Title III funds for other  purposes, including  to develop and implement language instruction programs for such  students;  to upgrade program objectives and instruction strategies, curricula,  educational software, and assessment procedures for such students;  to provide tutorials or intensified instruction for these students;  to provide community participation programs, family literacy services,  and parent outreach for these students and their families;  to acquire educational technology or instructional materials; and  to provide access to electronic networks for materials, training, and  communication.
School districts that receive funds because they have experienced  substantial increases in immigrant children and youth are to use these  funds for activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities for  these students. Such activities may include family literacy programs  designed to assist parents in becoming active participants in the education  of their children; services such as tutoring, mentoring, and academic or  career counseling for these students; support for teacher aides trained  specifically for working with these students; the acquisition of  instructional materials or software; and programs designed to introduce  these students to the educational system.
section_title: American Community Survey
paragraphs: An Office of Management and Budget-sponsored interagency committee,  including Education, exists to determine questions to be included on the  ACS and decennial census. Education’s National Center for Education  Statistics represented the department in the determination of the  questions used by Census. The current language questions were developed  for the 1980 census to obtain information needed about current language  use and limited English language proficiency as a result of legislation such  as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Bilingual Education Act, and the Voting  Rights Act. These questions remain in their original form and have not  been modified since the passage of NCLBA.
section_title: State Data (Number of Students with Limited English Proficiency Assessed)
paragraphs: The other data source specified by NCLBA as a potential basis for the  distribution of Title III funding—the number of students with limited  English proficiency who are assessed annually for proficiency in English— would generally come from the states. States report the number of  students assessed to Education in their Consolidated State Performance  Reports. States are to report the number of these students served by Title  III who are assessed annually for proficiency in English in the state  Biennial Evaluation Reports to Education.
section_title: Oversight
paragraphs: Education has responsibility for general oversight under Title III of  NCLBA, including providing guidance and technical assistance,  monitoring, and reporting information to Congress on students with  limited English proficiency based on data collected in the Consolidated  State Performance Reports and Biennial Evaluation Reports. Education  reviews state plans, which all states have submitted. These plans, as  required by Title III, outline the process that the state will use in making  subgrants to eligible entities and provide evidence that districts conduct  annual assessments for English proficiency that meet the law’s  requirements, along with other information. By June 2003, Education had  reviewed and approved all state plans; Education has since reviewed and  approved many plan amendments submitted by states.
section_title: Education Used Census’ ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds Because State Data Were Incomplete and Data Measurement Issues Could Result in Funding Differences across States
paragraphs: Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funds across states  although measurement issues with ACS and state-reported data could  affect the amount of funding that each state receives. Education has not  developed a methodology to determine the more accurate of the allowable  data once state data are complete. The two data sources differ in what  they measure and how that measurement occurs. These differences  between the data sources have implications for funding levels—some  states could receive more funding while others could receive less  depending on which data source Education uses.
subsections: section_title: Education Used ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds across States, but Has Not Developed a Methodology to Determine the More Accurate of the Allowable Data—State Data or ACS Data
paragraphs: Education based the distribution of Title III funding across states on  Census’ ACS data for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. In both years, Education  used these data to determine the number of children and youth with  limited English proficiency as well as the number of children and youth  who were recent immigrants. Prior to fiscal year 2005, Education used  Census 2000 data for the number of children and youth with limited  English proficiency and relied on state-reported data for the number of  recent immigrants.
Education officials determined that the ACS data were more accurate than  state data—primarily because the state data provided in the Consolidated  State Performance Reports on the number of students with limited English  proficiency who were assessed for English proficiency across three  dimensions (reading, writing, and oral) were incomplete. Education  officials explained that not all states provided these data for school year  2004-05, and some provided data that included only partial counts of  students. For example according to Education, some states, such as  California and Texas, did not assess all students with limited English  proficiency. Education officials told us that the lack of complete state  data was, in part, due to the time needed to establish academic standards  and align English language proficiency assessments to those standards and  collect the related data.
Education officials also explained that some states provided inconsistent  data on the number of students with limited English proficiency who were  assessed for English proficiency in the Consolidated State Performance  Reports because instructions for providing this information did not  include definitions of the data to be collected. Similarly, we found that  these instructions could be interpreted to ask for different data elements.  For example, it was unclear whether states should provide the number of  students screened for English proficiency, the number of students who  were already identified as limited English proficient who were then  assessed for their proficiency or a combination of the two numbers.  Further it was not clear whether or not states were to provide an  unduplicated count—as some states use more than one assessment to  evaluate a student’s mastery of the various dimensions of English  proficiency (reading, writing, and oral). Such students may be reported  more than once. As a result, some states included duplicate counts of  students, and in other states, these data included other student counts  (based on screening of new students rather than assessments of already  identified students as specified in the law). In September 2006, Education  officials told us that they plan to modify the instructions for providing  these data in the Consolidated State Performance Report for school year  2006-07 data that is to be submitted in December of 2007. However, the  officials did not have a copy of a plan or proposed modifications.
During the time of our engagement, Education was in the process of  reviewing state data and providing feedback to the states based on both  school year 2003-04 and 2004-05 Consolidated State Performance Report  data. Education performed this effort in part to improve the quality of  state data entered into Education’s national data system. This effort  included comparing recent data to data provided in previous years and  incorporating data edits and checks to guide state officials as they entered  relevant data electronically. Education officials told us that they expect  this review along with feedback to the states to result in improved data for  school year 2005-06 and beyond. They also told us that they believe their  efforts to address state data quality, including clarifying Consolidated  State Performance Report instructions and reviewing state-provided data,  will result in improved information on the number of students with limited  English proficiency who were assessed for English proficiency.
While Education officials expected that their efforts would improve the  quality of the data, they told us that they had not established criteria or a  methodology to determine the relative accuracy of the two data sources.  Education officials stated that as the state data improve and become  complete, complex analysis will be needed to determine the relative  accuracy of these data and the ACS data.
section_title: The Allowable State Data and the ACS Data Differ in What They Measure and How That Measurement Occurs
paragraphs: The two allowable sources of data measure fundamentally different  populations. The state data specified in NCLBA are to represent those  students with limited English proficiency who are assessed annually for  proficiency. In contrast, the ACS data that Education uses to represent  students with limited English proficiency are based on self-reported  survey responses to particular questions of a sample of the population.  Table 1 compares different characteristics of these data, including what  they measure and how.
NCLBA requires that all students with limited English proficiency are  assessed annually for proficiency in English. However, states have  different methods of identifying which students have limited English  proficiency (see fig. 1). These varied methods, along with any differences  in interpreting student performance on such screenings, could result in a  lack of uniformity in the population identified as having limited English  proficiency. States generally employ home language surveys— questionnaires asking what languages are spoken at home—to determine  which students should be screened for English proficiency. However,  beyond the home language survey, methodologies for determining a  student’s English proficiency vary. States use different screening  instruments, and even within a state, there could be variation in the  instruments used. In addition, some states and school districts may  implement other methods—such as subjective teacher observation  reports—in determining a student’s language proficiency. Regardless of  how states determine which students have limited English proficiency and  need language services, they are required to offer services and assess the  progress of all such students.
The ACS data used by Education to represent the number of students with  limited English proficiency are based on a sample of the population. In  particular, these data represent the number of persons ages 5 to 21 who  speak a language other than English in the home and who report speaking  English less than “very well” (see fig. 2). The responses to the question  regarding how well members of the respondent’s household speak English  are subjective. The Census Bureau has found some inconsistency with  these responses in its re-interview process, which is a data quality check.
Is a language other than English spoken in the home?
It is not known how accurately the ACS data reflect the population of  students with limited English proficiency. According to Census officials,  no research exists on the linkage between the responses to the ACS  English ability questions and the identification of students with limited  English proficiency. Because ACS data are used as the basis of Title III- funding distribution, it is critical to understand how accurately these data  represent the population and whether they do so uniformly across states.
In addition, ACS data for 2003 and 2004 show some large fluctuations in  the number of respondents who speak English less than very well. In part,  these fluctuations can be attributed to the partial implementation of the  ACS in these 2 years. The full implementation of the ACS occurred in  2005, and the data on English ability were not yet available at the time of  our review. Our analysis of the 2003 and 2004 ACS data that Education  used as the basis of Title III funding showed that 13 states had increases of  10 percent or more in this population, while 20 states and the District of  Columbia had decreases of 10 percent or more from the prior year.
Further, seven of the states that showed decreases of 10 percent or more  in the ACS 2003-04 data representing students with limited English  proficiency also showed an increase in the number of recent immigrants  for this period. Many of these immigrants were likely to have limited  English proficiency. For example, according to ACS data that Education  uses to represent students with limited English proficiency, Rhode Island  had a decrease of 33.5 percent in this population at the same time that it  had an increase (about 33 percent) in the number of recent immigrants  (age 3 to 21).
Education used the most current ACS data available to distribute Title III  funding across the states, consequently the fluctuations in the ACS data  were reflected in fluctuations in funding. In so far as these data reflect  population changes, such fluctuations are to be expected. However, if the  fluctuations were due to errors resulting from the sample size for the 2003  and 2004 ACS data, then they may have resulted in some states receiving a  greater (or lesser) proportion of the funds than their population of  students with limited English proficiency and recently immigrated  children and youth would warrant. Table 3 shows Education’s  distribution of Title III funds across states for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
In our 12 study states, we found differences between the state-reported  number of students identified as having limited English proficiency and  the ACS data that Education uses to represent this population of students  (see fig. 3). In 6 states, the 2004 ACS number was greater than the state’s  count (for school year 2004-05), while in the other 6 states the ACS  number was less than the corresponding state count. For example, while  California reported having about 1.6 million students with limited English  proficiency in the 2004-05 school year, ACS estimates of the population of  persons ages 5 to 21 who speak a language other than English in the home  and speak English less than “very well” was less than 1.1 million. This  represents a difference of almost 50 percent. The difference in New York  for that school year was also large—New York reported about 204,000  students with limited English proficiency—and the ACS number used by  Education was about 332,000, a difference of almost 40 percent for the  same school year (see fig. 3).
Education used ACS data for the number of immigrant children and youth  for fiscal years 2005 and 2006; however, for fiscal years 2002-2004,  Education relied on state-reported counts of the number of immigrant  children and youth. With regard to data states collect on the number of  children and youth who are recent immigrants, state officials expressed a  lack of confidence in these data. State officials in some of the 12 study  states told us that these data were not very reliable because school and  school district officials did not ask about immigration status directly.  Some state and school district officials told us that in order to determine  whether a student should be classified as a recent immigrant, they relied  on information such as place of birth and the student’s date of entry into  the school system. Officials in one state told us that in the absence of prior  school documentation, they made the assumption that if a student was  born outside the U.S. and entered the state’s school system within the last  3 years, then the student was a recent immigrant. See table 4 for more  information about the characteristics of state-collected data and ACS data  pertaining to children and youth who are recent immigrants.
The ACS data on the number of children and youth who are recent  immigrants represent the number of foreign-born persons ages 3 to 21 who  came to the United States within the 3 years prior to the survey. Similar to  the ACS data that Education used to represent students with limited  English proficiency, these data are also based on self reports. However,  the ACS responses are more objective (e.g., the date of entry into the  United States) and therefore may be more consistent than the responses to  the English ability questions.
section_title: Some States Could Receive More Funding While Others Could Receive Less Depending on Which Data Source Education Uses
paragraphs: Education’s choice to use one data set over the other has implications for  the amount of funding states receive because the data sources specified in  NCLBA measure different populations in different ways. We simulated the  distribution of funds across our 12 study states, using ACS data and data  representing the number of students with limited English proficiency  reported to us by state officials. We used the number of students with  limited English proficiency identified by states, rather than the number of  these students assessed annually for their English proficiency because  state-reported data on the number of students assessed for school years  2003-04 or 2004-05 were not available for all the 12 study states.  Throughout the simulation, we used ACS data representing the number of  immigrant children and youth. Based on our simulation, we found that in  fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 5 of the 12 study states—Arizona, California,  Colorado, Nevada, and Washington—would have received more funding  and the other 7 study states would have received less (see figs. 4 and 5).
section_title: Under NCLBA, Federal Funding for Students with Limited English Proficiency and Immigrant Children and Youth Has Increased, and More School Districts Are Receiving Funds
paragraphs: Federal funds for students with limited English proficiency and immigrant  children and youth increased significantly from fiscal year 2001—the year  prior to the enactment of the NCLBA— to fiscal year 2006. In addition to  the increase in funding to the states, many more school districts received  funds under the Title III formula grant program.
subsections: section_title: Funding for Students with Limited English Proficiency and Immigrant Students Increased Significantly under Title III from Title VII Levels
paragraphs: Federal funding for students with limited English proficiency and  immigrant children and youth increased significantly from fiscal year 2001  (the year prior to the enactment of NCLBA) to fiscal year 2002 when  Congress first authorized Education to distribute funds to states under  Title III. In fiscal year 2001 states, schools, school districts, and  universities received almost all of the $446 million dollars appropriated for  Title VII to educate students with limited English proficiency, including  immigrant students. Congress appropriated over $650 million for this  purpose in fiscal year 2002. Annual appropriations remained between $650  million and $685 million in fiscal years 2003-06 (see fig. 6).
Under NCLBA, 37 states received an increase in funding to support  students with limited English proficiency and immigrant children and  youth in fiscal year 2006, compared to funding in fiscal year 2001 under  Title VII. Education provided about 93 percent (more than $600 million) of  funds to support students with limited English proficiency and immigrant  children and youth to states based on the Title III formula for funding  distribution in fiscal year 2006. The remainder funded other Title III  programs, including professional development grants (5.4%) and Native  American and Alaskan Native grants (1.2%).
In fiscal year 2001, Education distributed 41.2 percent of the $432 million  of Title VII funds provided to states in the form of discretionary grants to  schools, school districts, and state education agencies to support the  education of students with limited English proficiency, and 22.5 percent  for professional development of teachers and others associated with the  education of these students. Education allocated (34.4%) to states to  support the education of immigrant students under the Emergency  Immigrant program and the remaining 1.9 percent to state educational  agencies for program administration and to provide technical assistance to  school districts. (See fig. 7 for distribution of Title VII funds in total and  Title III funds by program for fiscal years 2001-06.)
The percentage of grant funding specified for professional development  decreased from 22.5 percent under Title VII in fiscal year 2001 to about 5.4  percent under Title III in fiscal year 2006. However, Education officials  told us that states and school districts are required to use a portion of the  Title III formula grant funding they receive to provide professional  development for teachers and other staff even though the level of funds is  not specified in the law. As a result, officials believe that more funds are  being spent for professional development under Title III than under Title  VII.
The percentage of funding provided for programs specifically for  immigrant students was higher under Title VII than under Title III. Under  Title VII, Education distributed about 34 percent of fiscal year 2001  funding to states based on the number of immigrant students in the state.  In contrast, 20 percent of the Title III formula grant funds is distributed to  states on the basis of their relative number of immigrant students. Upon  receiving Title III grants, states are to reserve up to 15 percent of their  formula grants to award subgrants to school districts within the state with  significant increases in school enrollment of immigrant children and  youth. Officials in our study states told us that the percentage of funds  they reserved specifically for providing enhanced instructional  opportunities for immigrant children and youth ranged from 0 to15  percent, and varied in some states from year to year. For example, one  state’s officials noted that the percentage varied from 8 percent in fiscal  year 2003 to none in fiscal year 2005. Officials in our study states generally  explained that they distributed Title III funds reserved for this purpose to  school districts with a significant increase in immigrant students over the  previous 2 years. For example, another state official stated that to receive  these funds, school districts must have an increase of either 3 percent or  50 students from the average of the 2 previous years, whichever is less,  and must have a minimum of 10 immigrant students.
section_title: More School Districts Received Funds for Students with Limited English Proficiency under Title III Formula-Based Funding Than under the Title VII Discretionary Grants
paragraphs: The number of school districts receiving federal funding for students with  limited English proficiency has increased under Title III compared to  under Title VII. For example, in three of our study states (California,  Texas, and Illinois) more than 1,900 school districts received funding for  students with limited English proficiency under Title III in school year  2003-04 compared to about 500 school districts (including districts in  which schools were awarded Title VII grants directly) receiving such  funding under Title VII. Further, fewer schools in a district receiving Title  VII funds may have actually benefited from these funds. For example,  officials in two districts noted that under Title III all schools in the  districts received some funds to support their students with limited  English proficiency. In contrast, these officials told us that prior to  NCLBA, Title VII discretionary grants were targeted to some schools in  their districts while other schools with students with limited English  proficiency received no Title VII funds. Education officials estimated that  Title III funds are now being used to support 80 percent of the students  with limited English proficiency in schools.
section_title: States and School Districts Used Title III Funds to Support Programs for Students with Limited English Proficiency, but Some Cited Challenges Recruiting Highly Qualified Staff
paragraphs: States and school districts reported using Title III funds to support a  variety of programs and activities for students with limited English  proficiency, ranging from various types of language instruction programs  to professional development. With regard to challenges in implementing  effective programs, officials we interviewed in 5 study states and 8 school  districts reported difficulty recruiting qualified staff.
subsections: section_title: Title III Funds Supported Various Programs and Activities, Including Language Instruction and Professional Development
paragraphs: Nationwide, states and school districts reported using Title III funds to  support a variety of programs and activities, including language  instruction, activities to support immigrant children and youth,  professional development, and technical assistance. For example, all fifty  states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico reported that school  districts receiving Title III funds implemented various types of language  instruction programs, including bilingual and English as a second language  (ESL) programs, according to 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports  to Education. Specifically, all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto  Rico reported using ESL programs, which typically involve little or no use  of the native language, such as sheltered English instruction and pull-out  ESL. In addition, all but 12 states also reported using bilingual programs,  which may provide instruction in two languages, such as dual language  programs that are designed to serve both English-proficient and limited  English proficient students concurrently (see table 5). (See app. II for  more information regarding language-instruction programs that states, the  District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported using.)
Forty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported that  school districts used Title III funds designated to support activities for  immigrant children and youth for programs such as parent outreach,  tutorials, mentoring, and identifying and acquiring instructional materials.  For example, officials in one state noted that many school districts used  these funds to expand activities designed for all students with limited  English proficiency, while other districts used them to meet the unique  needs of immigrant students not addressed through other programs, such  as providing counseling for traumatized refugee students. Officials in  another state noted that school districts commonly used these funds to  provide newcomer centers that provided educational and other services to  recent immigrants and their parents. Funds were also used to provide ESL  classes before and after school for recent immigrant students as well as  ESL classes, literacy classes, and computer classes for their parents.
States also reported that Title III funds supported professional  development activities. Specifically, all states, the District of Columbia,  and Puerto Rico reported that school districts used Title III funds to  conduct professional development activities for teachers or other  personnel, such as workshops or seminars on the administration and  interpretation of English language proficiency assessments or on various  teaching strategies for students with limited English proficiency. In  addition, 40 states reported reserving a portion of state-level funds to  provide professional development to assist teachers and other personnel  in meeting state and local certification, endorsement and licensing  requirements for teaching these students. For example, one state reported  offering a seminar once per year that provided professional development  hours that participants could use to meet state certification or  endorsement requirements, and another state noted that it reimbursed  teachers for tuition for courses that led to ESL endorsement.
In addition, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported  reserving state-level funds for other activities, including providing  technical assistance, planning, and administration (table 6). All 12 study  states reported reserving state-level funds. While all study states reported  reserving state-level funds for administration—including salaries for Title  III staff—as well as for professional development and technical assistance,  the majority of study states also reserved these funds for other activities,  such as to develop guidance on English language proficiency standards.
Similarly, in interviews with officials in 11 school districts and schools  we visited in 6 of our study states, we found that Title III funds were used  to support a variety of programs and activities for these students. Most  districts we visited reported using Title III funds for the instructional  program and materials as well as for professional development and  assessments. In addition, districts used these funds to provide services,  such as after-school tutoring or summer school programs, and for parent  outreach activities, such as adult ESL classes or workshops on how to  help your child succeed in school.
For example, in one school district, we visited a high school that used Title  III funds for two English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teachers  and one teacher aide who worked with all of the school’s limited English  proficient students. School officials also said that the county used Title III  funds for a resource teacher who visited their school on a weekly basis to  instruct teachers in ESOL strategies. The resource teacher also provided  individualized pull-out instruction. This school also purchased computer- based learning software with Title III funds.
NCLBA requires school districts to use a portion of Title III funds for  language instruction programs for students with limited English  proficiency and to provide professional development to teachers or other  personnel. However, Education found issues related to these required uses  during Title III-monitoring visits to seven states. For example, Education  found that one of two districts visited in one state used all its Title III  funds for teacher salaries and benefits. Education found that this issue  arose due to a lack of familiarity with federal requirements and required  the state to develop a corrective action plan. However, in the remaining 14  states monitored to date, Education did not find any issues related to the  required uses.
section_title: Some States and School Districts Cited Challenges in Recruiting Highly Qualified Staff
paragraphs: Officials in five study states and in 8 school districts in the six states we  visited reported that difficulty hiring qualified teachers or other personnel  that meet NCLBA requirements presented challenges to implementing  effective programs. NCLBA requires public school teachers to be highly  qualified in every core academic subject they teach and increased the  level of funding to help states and districts implement teacher qualification  requirements, including activities to help states and districts recruit and  retain highly qualified teachers. However, officials in one district we  visited noted that teacher transience in high-needs schools presents  challenges because schools must continually provide training to new staff  on strategies for teaching students with limited English proficiency. In  another district, officials noted a particular challenge in locating qualified  substitute teachers to work with these students when necessary.
Prior GAO work also found that states and school districts were  experiencing challenges implementing NCLBA’s teacher qualification  requirements, including difficulties with teacher recruitment and  retention. While we found that many of the hindrances reported by state  and district officials could not be addressed by Education, Education had  identified several steps it would take in its 2002-07 strategic plan related to  these issues, including supporting professional development and  encouraging innovative teacher compensation and accountability systems.
section_title: Education Provided Oversight and Support to Help States Meet Title III Requirements
paragraphs: Education’s oversight included Title III monitoring visits; twice yearly  discussions with states on information they provide to Education, known  as desk audits; and continuous informal monitoring in response to  questions from states. As part of its oversight effort, Education  implemented a monitoring program in 2005 to address each states’  administration of the Title III program. This monitoring effort was  designed to provide regular, systematic reviews and evaluations of how  states meet Title III requirements to ensure that they implement and  administer programs in accordance with the law. Monitoring is conducted  on a 3-year cycle, and as of September 2006, Education officials had  monitored and reported on 20 states and the District of Columbia.  Education officials reported that they plan to visit 17 more states in fiscal  year 2007.
As part of the monitoring visits, Education reviews states’ and districts’  implementation of NCLBA requirements, such as data to be included in  required reports and required district uses of Title III funds. Education has  found issues relating to a number of these requirements. For example, for  4 of the 20 states monitored and the District of Columbia, Education had  findings related to the data that these states submitted in their  Consolidated State Performance Reports. According to Education, 20 of  the 21 monitoring reports had findings, and most states have developed  corrective action plans to address them. Education officials stated that  they are reviewing these plans and working with states to determine which  findings have been appropriately addressed and to develop a time frame  for resolving remaining findings.
In addition, Education’s program officers perform semiannual reviews of  states’ responses to sections of the Consolidated State Performance  Report related to Title III and Biennial Evaluation Reports states submit  to Education along with phone calls to state officials to address issues  identified. For example, in October 2005 the program officers asked states  how quickly they got the funding out to school districts because this was  an area identified as a concern. Finally, Education officials explained that  they provide informal, ongoing monitoring by addressing issues brought  up by state officials throughout the year.
Education offered support in a variety of ways to help states meet Title III  requirements. Education held on-site and phone meetings to provide  technical assistance to states, such as how to address the needs of those  students having both limited English proficiency and disabilities.  Education also held annual conferences focused on students with limited  English proficiency that included sessions that provided information to  state Title III directors and others on a variety of topics, such as NCLBA  policies related to students with limited English proficiency and English  language proficiency assessment issues. Education also held semiannual  meetings and training sessions with state Title III directors, a nationwide  Web cast on English language achievement objectives, and also  videoconference training sessions for some state officials on how to meet  Title III requirements. The department issued guidance on issues related to  students with limited English proficiency on its Web site and also  distributed information through an electronic bulletin board and a weekly  electronic newsletter focused on students with limited English proficiency  and through the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition  and Language Instruction Educational Programs. In addition, Education  plans to provide assistance to individual states in developing appropriate  goals for student progress in learning English through at least 3 of the 16  regional comprehensive centers the agency has contracted with to build  state capacity to help school districts that are not meeting their adequate  yearly progress goals.
Officials from 5 of the 12 study states reported general satisfaction with  the guidance, training, and technical assistance Education provided.  However, one area that officials from seven of the study states identified  as a challenge was addressing the needs of those students having both  limited English proficiency and disabilities. Although Education issued  guidance on including students with both limited English proficiency and  disabilities in English language assessments and English proficiency goals,  two states noted that the guidance does not specifically address how to  serve those students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who  also have limited English proficiency. Education estimates that nationwide  about 1 percent of students have the most significant cognitive disabilities.  An Education official stated that there is limited research on how to  address this group of students, but Education is working with states and  experts to explore the appropriate identification, assessment, placement,  and interventions for such students.
In addition, officials in 5 of the 12 study states thought more guidance was  needed to develop English language proficiency assessments that meet  NCLBA’s requirements. In our July 2006 report we found that Education  has issued little written guidance on how states are expected to assess and  track the English proficiency of these students, leaving some state officials  unclear about Education’s expectations. We recommended that  Education identify and provide the technical support states need to ensure  the validity of academic assessments and publish additional guidance on  requirements for assessing English language proficiency. Education  agreed with our recommendations and has begun to identify the additional  technical assistance needs of states and ways to provide additional  guidance in these areas.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: NCLBA was enacted to ensure that all students have the opportunity to  succeed in school, including meeting state academic content standards  and language proficiency standards. However, if Education does not use  the most accurate data as the basis of Title III-funding distribution, funds  may be misallocated across states. NCLBA specifies that Education is to  distribute funds based on the more accurate data source—Census’ ACS  data or the number of students with limited English proficiency assessed  annually. Because Education has not provided states with clear  instructions on the portions of the Consolidated State Performance Report  relevant to the collection of state data on the number of students with  limited English proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency, it  has been difficult for states to provide the data Education needs in order  to consider the use of state data as the basis of distributing Title III funds.  Until Education provides clear instructions, states may continue to  provide inconsistent data.
Once Education has provided such instructions and continues to work  with states to improve data quality, the state data will be more reliable and  complete. In addition, as Education completes its review of state-supplied  school-year 2003-04 and 2004-05 data, it will be in a better position to  consider the relative accuracy of the ACS and state data. However,   without a methodology in place to assess the relative accuracy of these  data sources, it is unclear how Education will determine which data to use  as the basis of Title III-funding distribution. This is of particular concern,  since without such a methodology, it will remain unknown how well either  of the two data sources captures the population of children with limited  English proficiency.
In addition, ACS data have shown volatility—large increases and  decreases—in the numbers of students with limited English proficiency  from 2003 to 2004. While some volatility may be related to population  fluctuations, some is related to the ACS sample size. Consequently, states  may experience excessive fluctuations in their funding amounts from year  to year. Some states may continue to see large fluctuations in the Title III  funding when data based on the fulI ACS sample are introduced, when  data are based on new annual population estimates are incorporated,  and when data based on the 2010 Decennial Census become available. As a  result, states affected by this volatility may be unable to plan effectively.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: To address the need for reliable and complete state data on the number of  students with limited English proficiency assessed annually, we  recommend that the Secretary of Education clarify the instructions on the  portions of the Consolidated State Performance Report relevant to the  collection of data on the number of students with limited English  proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency.
To strengthen the basis for Education’s distribution of Title III funds, we  recommend that the Secretary of Education develop and implement a  transparent methodology for determining the relative accuracy of the two  allowable sources of data, ACS or state data on the number of students  with limited English proficiency assessed annually, for Title III allocations  to states.
To address volatility in annual ACS data, we recommend that as part of  NCLBA reauthorization, the Secretary should seek authority to use  statistical methodologies, such as multiyear averages.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.  In a letter, Education agreed with our recommendation regarding the need  for reliable and complete data on the number of students with limited  English proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency.  The  department stated that it has addressed this recommendation by revising  the CSPR data collection form for the 2005-06 school year and by  proposing additional changes to the 2007 CSPR (Part I) form.  However, as  stated in our report, Education did not provide documentation of the  proposed changes.  Further, it is not clear that the changes the department  describes would result in complete and reliable data on the number of  students with English proficiency assessed annually for English  proficiency.  We still recommend that Education review and clarify  instructions to allow for an unduplicated count of students that would  meet NCLBA requirements for use as a potential data source for funding.  Regarding our second recommendation, Education agreed that it should  develop a methodology to compare the relative accuracy of the two data  sources, but stated that it should wait until the quality of state data  improves.  However, we encourage Education to take steps now to  develop a methodology, since the department has been taking multiple  steps to improve the quality and completeness of state data.  In this way,  Education will be positioned to determine which data source is the more  accurate when state data has sufficiently improved.  Finally, Education  seemed to agree with our recommendation concerning the volatility of  ACS data, but commented that the department did not have the legal  authority to use multiyear averages of ACS data as the basis for  distributing Title III funds.  The department suggested that Congress might  want to address this issue in the NCLBA reauthorization.  As a result, we  changed the recommendation to state that as part of NCLBA  reauthorization, Education should seek authority to use statistical  methodologies, such as multiyear averages, to address the volatility of ACS  data.
Education officials also provided technical comments that we  incorporated into the report where appropriate. Education’s written  comments are reproduced in appendix III.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,  relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will  also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report  will be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions  about this report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Major contributors are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language Instruction
paragraphs: The following information was gathered from the National Clearinghouse  of English Language Acquisition’s (NCELA) web site. NCELA identified  various sources for the program descriptions.
section_title: Appendix II: Language Instruction Educational Programs Used by States in School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Julianne Hartman Cutts (Analyst- in-Charge) and Nagla’a El-Hodiri (Senior Economist) managed all aspects  of this assignment. R. Jerry Aiken, Melinda L. Cordero, and Elisabeth  Helmer made significant contributions to this report. Tovah Rom  contributed to writing this report. Jean McSween, Robert Dinkelmeyer,  and Robert Parker provided key technical support. James Rebbe provided  legal support.