Public Education: Meeting the Needs of Students With Limited English Proficiency
Published: 2001-02-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Experts disagree about the best methods to teach student who speak little English. Even though different approaches to English language instruction may be effective, many variables may influence a given school's program choices. Moreover, there is no clear time line for acquiring English proficiency. Local decisions about the amount of time needed to attain proficiency and the amount of language support that should be provided may differ. Of the two main instructional approaches, English-based instruction is more common than instruction in a student's native language. Most students spent four or less years in these programs. School districts are required to ensure that English-language instruction is adequate and to provide these children with equal educational opportunities. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has adopted procedural requirements for criteria for judging the adequacy of local English-language instruction programs in meeting those needs. In three policy documents, 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, enters into agreement with the district specifying how the district will address the issues.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over 3.4 million children with limited proficiency in English were in U.S.  elementary and secondary schools in school year 1996-97. 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  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 second- language learning and talked to experts in the field. 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  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; 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. The Bilingual Education Act, enacted in 1968,  also serves a small percentage of these students under a supplemental  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.
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, the Supreme Court held that a  school district’s failure to provide English-language instruction to non- English-speakers violated title VI. 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.” In 1981, a federal court of appeals decision,  Castaneda v. Pickard, created a test for evaluating the adequacy of a  school district’s approach to addressing the needs of its non-English- speaking students and limited-English-speaking students. 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.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Education’s OCR has 12 regional  offices that enforce title VI and other civil rights statutes. In the five cases  we reviewed, OCR initiated investigations independently or after deciding  that a complaint brought by an individual or group met certain criteria. 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.
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.
section_title: Length of Time Needed for Proficiency Depends on Many Factors
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Types of Language Assistance for Students With Limited English Proficiency Vary
paragraphs: 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  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.”
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. 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.
section_title: States Define Proficiency Differently
paragraphs: 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— 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. 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  percentile on both the English reading and language arts sections of a state- approved norm-referenced academic assessment.
section_title: Time Needed to Attain Proficiency Can Vary With Student Characteristics
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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.
section_title: Research on Time Needed to Attain Proficiency Is Not Definitive
paragraphs: 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, and other  researchers in the field have challenged some of the results.
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 native- English-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.
section_title: English-Based Approaches Predominate; In the Six States Reviewed, Most Children Receive Services for 4 Years or Less
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: English-Based Approaches Are More Common Than Bilingual Approaches
paragraphs: 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. About 76 percent of  students with limited proficiency in English receive English-based  instruction (such as English as a second language ); 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.)
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. Nearly three-fourths of all children with limited English  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 Spanish- speaking 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.
section_title: Most Children in the Six States Reviewed Spend 4 Years or Less in Programs Aimed at Increasing English Proficiency
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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.
California, with about 40 percent of the nation’s students with limited  English proficiency in 1996-97, 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).
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.
section_title: OCR’s Interactions With School Districts Were Generally Positive; Some Specific Problems Reported
paragraphs: 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 three- pronged test for assessing the adequacy of programs for students with  limited English proficiency to determine whether school districts are in  compliance with title VI. OCR did not promulgate Castaneda’s  requirements as regulations, instead setting them forth in policy  documents. 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.
subsections: section_title: OCR’s Title VI Requirements Are Set Forth in Three Policy Documents
paragraphs: 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  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   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.
section_title: OCR Staff Generally Did Not Pressure Districts to Adopt a Bilingual Approach and Were Courteous and Professional
paragraphs: 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  pressure to increase emphasis on bilingual instruction. 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.)
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.)
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).
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.
section_title: Some School Districts Reported Problems With OCR’s Investigation
paragraphs: 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.
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).
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  published articles and other reports that appeared relevant and reviewed  each of them. Only three met all four of our selection criteria.
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. 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  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   Reforming Bilingual Education, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1998. Serial   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.
section_title: Data on Number of Years Students Received Language Services in Arizona and Illinois
paragraphs: Arizona was the only state we reviewed that had detailed breakdowns by  year on how long students who had received bilingual or English-as-a- second-language (ESL) services did so before making the transition out of  these services (see table 7).
Illinois was the only state that had data broken down by type of program  (ESL or bilingual) (see table 8).
section_title: School Districts' Impressions of Whether OCR Conveyed Preferences for Type of Language Instruction
paragraphs: We asked school district officials to answer the following question: “Did  OCR staff, as a whole, convey the impression that they favored English- only 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   4 percent indicated that, in their opinion, OCR favored English-only   1 percent indicated that, in their opinion, OCR favored another type of  language program. (See table 9.)
section_title: Most School Districts That Added Bilingual Instruction Reported No Pressure by OCR
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Comments From the Department of Education
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Malcolm Drewery, Behn Miller, Ellen  Soltow, and Virginia Vanderlinde made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Ordering Information
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs
paragraphs: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm  e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov  1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)