No Child Left Behind Act: Education Assistance Could Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency
Published: 2007-03-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) focused attention on the academic achievement of more than 5 million students with limited English proficiency. Obtaining valid test results for these students is challenging, given their language barriers. This testimony describes (1) the extent to which these students are meeting annual academic progress goals, (2) what states have done to ensure the validity of their academic assessments, (3) what states are doing to ensure the validity of their English language proficiency assessments, and (4) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) is supporting states' efforts to meet NCLBA's assessment requirements for these students. This testimony is based on a July 2006 report (GAO-06-815). To collect the information for this report, we convened a group of experts and studied five states (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Texas). We also conducted a state survey and reviewed state and Education documents.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In nearly two-thirds of 48 states for which we obtained data, students with limited English proficiency did not meet state proficiency goals for language arts or mathematics in school year 2003-2004. Further, in most states, these students generally did not perform as well as other student groups on state mathematics tests for elementary students. Officials in our five study states reported taking steps to follow generally accepted test development procedures to ensure the validity and reliability of academic tests for these students. However, our group of experts expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing these students in a valid manner, noting that some states lack technical expertise. Further, Education's completed peer reviews of assessments in 38 states found that 25 states did not provide adequate evidence of their validity or reliability. To improve the validity of these test results, most states offer accommodations, such as a bilingual dictionary. However, our experts reported that research is lacking on what accommodations are effective in mitigating language barriers. Several states used native language or alternate assessments for students with limited English proficiency, but these tests are costly to develop and are not appropriate for all students. Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments in 2006 to meet NCLBA requirements, and, as a result, complete information on their validity and reliability is not yet available. In 2006, 22 states used tests developed by one of four state consortia. Officials in our study states reported taking steps to ensure the validity of these tests. However, a 2005 Education-funded review of 17 English language proficiency tests found insufficient documentation of their validity. Education has offered a variety of technical assistance to help states assess students with limited English proficiency. However, Education has issued little written guidance to states on developing English language proficiency tests. Officials in about one-third of the 33 states we contacted told us they wanted more guidance about how to develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements. Education has offered states some flexibility in how they assess students with limited English proficiency, but officials in our study states told us that additional flexibility is needed to ensure that progress measures appropriately track the academic progress of these students. Since our report was published, Education has initiated a partnership with the states and other organizations to support the development of valid assessment options for students with limited English proficiency.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to present information from our July 2006  report on the assessment requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act  (NCLBA) as they pertain to students with limited English proficiency. An  estimated 5 million children with limited English proficiency were enrolled  in U.S. public schools during the 2003-2004 school year, representing about  10 percent of the total school population. They speak over 400 languages,  with almost 80 percent of students with limited English proficiency  speaking Spanish. These students often have language difficulties that  interfere with their ability to succeed in school and, prior to NCLBA, were  often excluded from statewide assessments. NCLBA’s requirements have  brought to the surface a number of challenges to assessing the academic  performance of these students in a valid and reliable manner (that is, the  assessment measures what it is designed to measure in a consistent  manner).
Congress passed NCLBA with the goal of increasing academic  achievement and closing achievement gaps. NCLBA required states to  demonstrate that all students have reached the “proficient” level on a  state’s language arts and mathematics assessments by 2014, and states  must demonstrate “adequate yearly progress” toward this goal each year.  In addition, students from groups that traditionally underperform,  including students with limited English proficiency, must meet the same  academic progress goals as other students. For the first time, NCLBA also  required states to annually assess the English proficiency of these students  and to demonstrate that they are making progress toward becoming  proficient in English.
My testimony today will focus on (1) the extent to which students with  limited English proficiency are meeting adequate yearly progress goals,   (2) what states have done to ensure that results from language arts and  mathematics assessments are valid and reliable for students with limited  English proficiency, (3) how states are assessing English proficiency and  what they are doing to address the validity and reliability of these  assessment results, and (4) how the Department of Education (Education)  is supporting states’ efforts to meet NCLBA’s assessment requirements for  these students. The information being presented today is from our July  2006 report.
In summary, students with limited English proficiency did not meet state  proficiency goals on language arts and mathematics tests in nearly two- thirds of 48 states for which we obtained data in the 2003-2004 school year.  Officials in 5 states we studied reported taking steps to follow generally  accepted test development procedures to ensure the validity and reliability  of their academic tests for students with limited English proficiency.  However, a group of experts we consulted expressed concerns about  whether all states were assessing these students in a valid manner. These  experts noted that some states lack the technical expertise needed to  ensure the validity of tests for these students. As evidence of the  challenges states face, Education’s completed peer reviews of 38 states  found that 25 did not provide adequate evidence on the validity or  reliability of test results for these students. We also found that, as allowed  under law, most states offer accommodations, such as a bilingual  dictionary, to these students in order to improve the validity of language  arts and mathematics test results. However, our experts reported that  research is lacking on what accommodations are effective for these  students. With respect to English language proficiency assessments, many  states were implementing new tests in 2006 to meet NCLBA requirements,  and as a result, complete information on their validity and reliability was  not available at the time of our review. Education has offered a variety of  technical assistance to help states assess students with limited English  proficiency. However, Education has issued little written guidance to  states on developing English language proficiency tests. Officials in about  one-third of the 33 states we contacted told us they wanted more guidance  about how to develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements.
To help states assess students with limited English proficiency in a valid  and reliable manner, our recent report included several recommendations.  Education agreed with most of the report’s recommendations and has  taken a number of steps to address them. Specifically, Education has  initiated a partnership with the states and other organizations to support  the development of valid assessment options for students with limited  English proficiency.
To determine the extent to which students with limited English  proficiency were meeting adequate yearly progress goals, we collected  school year 2003-2004 state-level data for 48 states, including the District  of Columbia. With regard to assessments, we studied the testing practices  of 5 states in depth (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and  Texas). We also directly contacted officials in 28 states to discuss their  English language proficiency assessments and Education’s guidance  regarding these assessments. Further, we convened a group of experts to  discuss states’ efforts to implement valid and reliable academic  assessments for students with limited English proficiency. These experts  had significant technical and research expertise in assessment issues, and  some had conducted research focused on students with limited English  proficiency. We also interviewed Education officials and reviewed relevant  Education documents. Finally, we interviewed officials from major test  development companies and state consortia that are developing English  language proficiency assessments and used a short e-mail survey to obtain  information from the 50 states and the District of Columbia on their use of  native language assessments. We conducted the review in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Students with limited English proficiency are a diverse and complex  group. They speak many languages and have a tremendous range of  educational needs and include refugees with little formal schooling and  students who are literate in their native languages. Accurately assessing  the academic knowledge of these students in English is challenging. If a  student responds incorrectly to a test item, it may not be clear if the  student did not know the answer or misunderstood the question because  of language barriers.
Title I of NCLBA requires states to administer tests in language arts and  mathematics to all students in certain grades and to use these tests as the  primary means of determining the annual performance of states, districts,  and schools. These assessments must be aligned with the state’s academic  standards—that is, they must measure how well a student has  demonstrated his or her knowledge of the academic content represented  in these standards. States are to show that increasing percentages of  students are reaching the proficient level on these state tests over time.  NCLBA also requires that students with limited English proficiency receive  reasonable accommodations and be assessed, to the extent practicable, in  the language and form most likely to yield accurate data on their academic  knowledge. In addition, for language arts, students with limited English  proficiency who have been in U.S. schools for 3 years or more must  generally be assessed in English. Finally, NCLBA also created a new  requirement for states to annually assess the English language proficiency  of students identified as having limited English proficiency.
Accurately assessing the academic knowledge of students with limited  English proficiency has become more critical because NCLBA designated  specific groups of students for particular focus. These four groups are  students who (1) are economically disadvantaged, (2) represent major  racial and ethnic groups, (3) have disabilities, and (4) are limited in  English proficiency. These groups are not mutually exclusive, so that the  results for a student who is economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, and has  limited English proficiency could be counted in three groups. States and  school districts are required to measure the progress of all students in  meeting academic proficiency goals, as well as to measure separately the  progress of these designated groups. To make adequate yearly progress,  each district and school must generally show that each of these groups  met the state proficiency goal and that at least 95 percent of students in  each group participated in these assessments. Students with limited  English proficiency are a unique group under NCLBA because once they  attain English proficiency they are no longer counted as part this group,  although Education has given states some flexibility in this area.
Recognizing that language barriers can hinder the assessment of students  who have been in the country for a short time, Education has provided  some testing flexibility. Specifically, Education does not require students  with limited English proficiency to participate in a state’s language arts  assessment during their first year in U.S. schools. In addition, while these  students must take a state’s mathematics assessment during their first  year, a state may exclude their scores in determining whether it met its  progress goals.
Title III of NCLBA focuses specifically on students with limited English  proficiency, with the purpose of ensuring that these students attain  English proficiency and meet the same academic standards as other  students. This title holds states and districts accountable for student  progress in attaining English proficiency by requiring states to establish  goals to demonstrate annual increases in both the number of students  attaining English proficiency and the number making progress in learning  English. States must establish English language proficiency standards that  are aligned with a state’s academic standards in order to ensure that  students are acquiring the academic language they need to successfully  participate in the classroom. Education also requires that a state’s English  language proficiency assessment be aligned to its English language  proficiency standards. While NCLBA requires states to administer  academic assessments to students in some grades, it requires states to  administer English language proficiency assessments annually to all  students with limited English proficiency, from kindergarten to grade 12.
section_title: Students with Limited English Proficiency Performed below Progress Goals in 2004 in Almost Two- Thirds of States
paragraphs: In nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained data, students  with limited English proficiency did not meet state proficiency goals in the  2003-2004 school year. Students with limited English proficiency met goals  in language arts and mathematics in 17 states. In 31 states, these students  missed the goals either for language arts or for both language arts and  mathematics (see fig. 1). In 21 states, the percentage of proficient students  in this group was below both the mathematics and the language arts  proficiency goals.
We found that the percentage of elementary school students with limited  English proficiency achieving proficient scores on the state’s mathematics  assessment was lower than that for the total student population in 48 of   49 states that reported to Education in school year 2003-2004. We also  found that, in general, a lower percentage of students with limited English  proficiency achieved proficient test scores than other selected student  groups. All of the 49 states reported that these students achieved lower  rates of proficiency than white students. The performance of limited  English proficient students relative to the other student groups varied. In  37 states, for example, economically disadvantaged students outperformed  students with limited English proficiency, while students with disabilities  outperformed these students in 14 states.
section_title: Selected States Considered Language Issues when Developing Academic Assessments, but Validity and Reliability Concerns Remain
paragraphs: Officials in the 5 states we studied reported that they have taken steps to  address challenges associated with academic assessments of students with  limited English proficiency. However, Education’s peer reviews of   38 states found a number of concerns in assessing these students. Our  group of experts indicated that states are generally not taking the  appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create valid and reliable  assessments for students with limited English proficiency. To increase  validity and reliability, most states offered accommodations to students,  such as providing extra time to complete the test and offering native  language assessments. However, offering accommodations may or may  not improve the validity of test results, as research in this area is lacking.
subsections: section_title: States Reported Efforts to Improve Validity of Assessment Results for Students with Limited English Proficiency
paragraphs: Officials in 5 states we studied reported taking some steps to address  challenges associated with assessing students with limited English  proficiency. Officials in 4 of these states reported following generally  accepted test development procedures, while a Nebraska official reported  that the state expects districts to follow such procedures.
Officials in California, New York, North Carolina, and Texas told us that  they try to implement the principles of universal design, which support  making assessments accessible to the widest possible range of students.  This is done by ensuring that instructions, forms, and questions are clear  and not more linguistically complex than necessary. In addition, officials  in some states reported assembling committees to review test items for  bias. For example, when developing mathematics items, these states try to  make language as clear as possible to ensure that the item is measuring  primarily mathematical concepts and to minimize the extent to which it is  measuring language proficiency. A mathematics word problem involving  subtraction, for example, might refer to fish rather than barracuda.  Officials in 3 of our study states told us they also used a statistical  approach to evaluate test items for bias related to students with limited  English proficiency.
section_title: Both Education’s Peer Reviews and Our Group of Experts Raised Concerns Regarding State Efforts to Ensure Valid and Reliable Assessment Results
paragraphs: Education’s completed NCLBA peer reviews of 38 states found that 25 did  not provide sufficient evidence on the validity or reliability of results for  students with limited English proficiency. For example, in Idaho, peer  reviewers commented that the state did not report reliability data for  students with limited English proficiency. As of March 2007, 18 states have  had their assessment systems fully approved by Education.
Our group of experts indicated that states are generally not taking the  appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create valid and reliable  assessments for these students and identified essential steps that should  be taken. These experts noted that no state has implemented an  assessment program for students with limited English proficiency that is  consistent with technical standards. They noted that students with limited  English proficiency are not defined consistently within and across states,  which is a crucial first step to ensuring reliability. If the language  proficiency levels of these students are classified inconsistently, an  assessment may produce results that appear inconsistent because of the  variable classifications rather than actual differences in skills. Further, it  appears that many states do not conduct separate analyses for different  groups of limited English proficient students. Our group of experts  indicated that the reliability of a test may be different for heterogeneous  groups of students, such as students who are literate in their native  language and those who are not. Further, these experts noted that states  are not always explicit about whether an assessment is attempting to  measure skills only (such as mathematics) or mathematics skills as  expressed in English. According to the group, a fundamental issue  affecting the validity of a test is the definition of what is being measured.
The expert group emphasized that determining the validity and reliability  of academic assessments for students with limited English proficiency is  complicated and requires a comprehensive collection of evidence rather  than a single analysis. In addition, the appropriate combination of analyses  will vary from state to state, depending on the characteristics of the  student population and the type of assessment. The group indicated that  states are not universally using all the appropriate analyses to evaluate the  validity and reliability of test results for students with limited English  proficiency. These experts indicated that some states may need assistance  to conduct appropriate analyses. Finally, they indicated that reducing  language complexity is essential to developing valid assessments for these  students, but expressed concern that some states and test developers do  not have a strong understanding of universal design principles or how to  use them to develop assessments that eliminate language barriers to  measuring specific skills.
section_title: Accommodations Can Increase Validity of Assessment Results, but Research on Appropriate Use Is Limited
paragraphs: The majority of states offered some accommodations to try to increase the  validity and reliability of assessment results for students with limited  English proficiency. These accommodations are intended to permit  students to demonstrate their academic knowledge, despite limited  language ability. Our review of state Web sites found documentation on  accommodations for 42 states. The number of accommodations offered  varied considerably among states. The most common accommodations  were allowing the use of a bilingual dictionary and reading test items  aloud in English (see table 1). Some states also administered assessments  to small groups of students or individuals, while others gave students extra  time to complete a test.
According to our expert group and our review of literature, research is  lacking on what specific accommodations are appropriate for students  with limited English proficiency, as well as their effectiveness in  improving the validity of assessment results. A 2004 review of state  policies found that few studies focus on accommodations intended to  address the linguistic needs of students with limited English proficiency or  on how accommodations affect the performance of students with limited  English proficiency. In contrast, significantly more research has been  conducted on accommodations for students with disabilities, much of it  funded by Education. Because of this research disparity, our group of  experts reported that some states offer accommodations to students with  limited English proficiency based on those they offer to students with  disabilities, without determining their appropriateness for individual  students. They noted the importance of considering individual student  characteristics to ensure that an accommodation appropriately addresses  the needs of the student.
section_title: Native Language and Alternate Assessments May Improve the Validity of Results but Are Challenging to Implement
paragraphs: In our survey, 16 states reported that they offered statewide native  language assessments in language arts or mathematics in some grades for  certain students with limited English proficiency in the 2004-2005 school  year. For example, New York translated its statewide mathematics  assessments into Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Korean, and Haitian-Creole.  In addition, 3 states were developing or planning to develop a native  language assessment.
Our group of experts told us that this type of assessment is difficult and  costly to develop. Development of a valid native language assessment  involves more than a simple translation of the original test. In most  situations, a process of test development and validation similar to that of  the nontranslated test is recommended. In addition, the administration of  native language assessments may not be practicable, for example, when  only a small percentage of limited English proficient students in the state  speak a particular language or when a state’s student population has many  languages. Members of our expert group told us that native language  assessments are generally an effective accommodation only for students in  specific circumstances, such as students who are instructed in their native  language or are literate in their native language.
Thirteen states offered statewide alternate assessments (such as reviewing  a student’s classroom work portfolio) in 2005 for certain students with  limited English proficiency, as of March 2006. Our expert group noted that  alternate assessments are difficult and expensive to develop, and may not  be feasible because of the amount of time required for such an  assessment. Members of the group also expressed concern about the  extent to which these assessments are objective and comparable and can  be aggregated with regular assessments.
section_title: Most States Implemented New English Language Proficiency Assessments but Faced Challenges Establishing Their Validity
paragraphs: Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments  for the 2005-2006 school year to meet Education’s requirement for states  to administer English language proficiency tests that meet NCLBA  requirements by the spring of 2006. These assessments must allow states  to track student progress in learning English. Additionally, Education  requires that these assessments be aligned to a state’s English language  proficiency standards. Education officials said that because many states  did not have tests that met NCLBA requirements, the agency funded four  state consortia to develop new assessments that were to be aligned with  state standards and measure student progress.
In the 2005-2006 school year, 22 states used assessments or test items  developed by one of four state consortia, making this the most common  approach taken by states. Eight states worked with test developers to  augment off-the-shelf English language proficiency assessments to  incorporate state standards. Officials in 14 states indicated that they are  administering off-the-shelf assessments. Seven states, including Texas,  Minnesota, and Kansas, created their own English language proficiency  assessments. Officials in these states said they typically worked with a test  developer or research organization to create the assessments.
Officials in our study states and test developers we interviewed reported  that they commonly apply generally accepted test development  procedures to develop their assessments, but some are still in the process  of documenting their validity and reliability. A 2005 review of the  documentation of 17 English proficiency assessments used by 33 states  found that the evidence on validity and reliability was generally  insufficient. The study, which was funded by Education, noted that none  of the assessments contained “sufficient technical evidence to support the  high-stakes accountability information and conclusions of student  readiness they are meant to provide.”
section_title: Education Has Provided Assistance, but States Reported Need for Additional Guidance and Flexibility
paragraphs: Education has offered states a variety of technical assistance to help them  appropriately assess students with limited English proficiency, such as  providing training and expert reviews of their assessment systems.  However, Education has issued little written guidance on how states are  expected to assess and track the English proficiency of these students,  leaving state officials unclear about Education’s expectations. While  Education has offered states some flexibility in how they incorporate  these students into their accountability systems, many of the state and  district officials we interviewed indicated that additional flexibility is  needed to ensure that academic progress of these students is accurately  measured.
subsections: section_title: Education Has Provided a Variety of Support on Assessment Issues but Little Written Guidance on Assessing Students with Limited English Proficiency
paragraphs: Education offers support in a variety of ways to help states meet NCLBA’s  assessment requirements for students with limited English proficiency.  The department’s primary technical assistance efforts have included the  following:    Title I peer reviews of states’ academic standards and assessment  systems: During these reviews, experts review evidence provided by  the state about the validity and reliability of these assessments.  Education shares information from the peer review to help states  address issues identified during the review.
Title III monitoring visits: Education began conducting site visits to  review state compliance with Title III requirements in 2005. As part of  these visits, the department reviews the state’s progress in developing  English language proficiency assessments that meet NCLBA  requirements.
Comprehensive centers: Education has contracted with 16 regional  comprehensive centers to build state capacity to help districts that are  not meeting their adequate yearly progress goals. At least 3 of these  centers plan to assist individual states in developing appropriate goals  for student progress in learning English. In 2005, Education also funded  an assessment and accountability comprehensive center, which  provides technical assistance related to the assessment of students,  including those with limited English proficiency.
Ongoing technical assistance for English language proficiency  assessments: Education has provided information and ongoing  technical assistance to states using a variety of tools and has focused  specifically on the development of the English language proficiency  standards and assessments required by NCLBA.
While providing this technical assistance, Education has issued little  written guidance on developing English language proficiency assessments  that meet NCLBA’s requirements and on tracking the progress of students  in acquiring English. Education issued some limited nonregulatory  guidance on NCLBA’s basic requirements for English language proficiency  standards and assessments in February 2003.
However, officials in about one-third of the 33 states we contacted  expressed uncertainty about implementing these requirements. They told  us that they would like more specific guidance from Education to help  them develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements, generally focusing on  two issues. First, some officials said they were unsure about how to align  English language proficiency standards with content standards for  language arts, mathematics, and science, as required by NCLBA. Second,  some officials reported that they did not know how to use the different  scores from their old and new English language proficiency assessments  to track student progress. Without guidance and specific examples on both  of these issues, some of these officials were concerned that they will  spend time and resources developing an assessment that may not meet  Education’s requirements. Education officials told us that they were  currently developing additional nonregulatory guidance on these issues,  but it had not yet been finalized.
section_title: Education Has Offered Different Accountability Options for Students with Limited English Proficiency, but State Officials Reported Additional Flexibility Is Needed
paragraphs: Education has offered states several flexibilities in tracking academic  progress goals for students with limited English proficiency to support  their efforts to develop appropriate accountability systems for these  students. For example, students who have been in U.S. schools for less  than a year do not have to meet the same testing requirements as other  students. Another flexibility recognizes that limited English proficiency is  a more transient quality than being of a particular race. Students who  achieve English proficiency leave the group at the point when they  demonstrate their academic knowledge in English, while new students  with lower English proficiency are constantly entering the group (see   fig. 2). Given the group’s continually changing composition, meeting  progress goals may be more difficult than doing so for other student  groups, especially in districts serving large numbers of these students.
Consequently, Education allowed states to include, for up to 2 years, the  scores of students who were formerly classified as limited English  proficient when determining whether a state met its progress goals for  students with limited English proficiency.
Several state and local officials in our study states told us that additional  flexibility would be helpful to ensure that the annual progress measures  provide meaningful information about the performance of students with  limited English proficiency. Officials in 4 of the states we studied  suggested that certain students with limited English proficiency should be  exempt from testing or have their test results excluded for longer periods  than is currently allowed. Several officials voiced concern that some of  these students have such poor English skills or so little previous school  experience that assessment results do not provide any meaningful  information. Instead, some of these officials stated that students with  limited English proficiency should not be included in academic  assessments until they demonstrate appropriate English. However, the  National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization, has voiced  concern that excluding too many students from a state’s annual progress  measures will allow some states and districts to overlook the needs of  these students.
With respect to including the scores of students previously classified as  limited English proficient for up to 2 years, officials in 2 of our 5 study  states, as well as one member of our expert group, thought it would be  more appropriate for these students to be counted in the limited English  proficient group throughout their school careers—but only for  accountability purposes. They pointed out that by keeping students  formerly classified as limited English proficient in the group, districts that  work well with these students would see increases in the percentage who  score at the proficient level in language arts and mathematics. An  Education official explained that the agency does not want to label these  students as limited English proficient any longer than necessary.  Education officials also noted that including all students who were  formerly limited English proficient would inflate the achievement  measures for this group.
District officials in 4 states argued that tracking the progress of individual  students in this group is a better measure of how well these students are  progressing academically. Officials in one district pointed to a high school  with a large percentage of students with limited English proficiency that  had made tremendous progress with these students, doubling the  percentage of students achieving academic proficiency. The school missed  the annual progress target for this group by a few percentage points, but  school officials said that the school would be considered successful if it  was measured by how much individual students had improved. In  response to educators and policymakers who believe such an approach  should be used for all students, Education initiated a pilot project in  November 2005, allowing a limited number of states to incorporate  measures of student progress over time in determining whether districts  and schools met their annual progress goals.
section_title: Prior Recommendations and Agency Response
paragraphs: We made several recommendations to Education in our July 2006 report.  Specifically, we recommended that Education support additional research  on appropriate accommodations for these students and disseminate  information on research-based accommodations to states. We also  recommended that Education determine what additional technical  assistance states need to implement valid and reliable academic  assessments for these students and provide such assistance. Further, we  recommended that Education publish additional guidance with more  specific information on the requirements for assessing English language  proficiency and tracking student progress in learning English. Finally, we  recommended that Education explore ways to provide states with  additional flexibility in terms of holding states accountable for students  with limited English proficiency.
Education agreed with our first three recommendations and has taken a  number of steps to address them. In recognition of the challenges  associated with assessing students with limited English proficiency and in  response to GAO’s report, Education initiated the LEP (Limited English  Proficient) Partnership in July 2006. Under the partnership, Education has  pledged to provide technical assistance and support to states in the  development of assessment options for states to use in addressing the  needs of their diverse student populations. Education’s partners in this  effort include the National Council of LaRaza, Mexican American Legal  Defense and Educational Fund, Council of Chief State School Officers,  Comprehensive Center on Assessment and Accountability, and the  National Center on English Language Acquisition. All states have been  invited to participate in this effort. The partnership held its first meeting in  August 2006. In October 2006, officials from all the states came together to  discuss areas for which they need additional technical assistance. As a  result of these meetings, Education is supporting a variety of technical  assistance projects, including the development of a framework on English  language proficiency standards and assessments, the development of  guides for developing native language and simplified assessments, and the  development of a handbook on appropriate accommodations for students  with limited English proficiency. Education officials told us that they are  planning the next partnership meeting for the summer of 2007 and expect  to have several of these resources available at that time.
Education did not explicitly agree or disagree with our recommendation to  explore additional options for state flexibility. Instead, the agency  commented that it has explored and already provided various types of  flexibility regarding the inclusion of students with limited English  proficiency in accountability systems. However, in January 2007,  Education issued a blueprint for strengthening NCLBA, which calls for  greater use of growth models and the recognition within state  accountability systems of schools that make significant progress in moving  students toward English proficiency.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may  have.
section_title: GAO Contacts
paragraphs: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at  (202) 512- 7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  include Harriet Ganson, Bryon Gordon, Shannon Groff, Krista Loose,  Michelle St. Pierre, Sheranda Campbell, and Nagla’a El Hodiri.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: No Child Left Behind Act: Education’s Data Improvement Efforts Could  Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds. GAO-07-140.  Washington, D.C.: December 7, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local  Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational  Services. GAO-06-758. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States  Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency.  GAO-06-815. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic  Growth That Education’s Initiatives May Help Address. GAO-06-661.  Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education’s  Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification  Requirements. GAO-06-25. Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More to Help States Better  Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention  Strategies. GAO-05-879. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated  in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved.  GAO-05-618. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005.
Head Start: Further Development Could Allow Results of New Test to Be  Used for Decision Making. GAO-05-343. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional  Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School  Choice Provision. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process  for Tracking States’ Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734.  Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.