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

Letter

Background

States and localities play the principal role in educating all students, including those with limited English proficiency, with most states providing supplemental aid specifically to address the special needs of these students. According to a November 1997 report (the latest available) by the Institute for Research in English Acquisition and Development, 39 states have some form of regulations targeting these students, ranging from a mandate in Texas that school districts provide bilingual instruction in at least some grades to a mandate in California that school districts provide instruction only in English.

For the past 30 years, the federal government has served students with limited English proficiency primarily through title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 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.

Length of Time Needed for Proficiency Depends on Many Factors

No clear consensus exists among researchers and educators on the length of time needed for children with limited English proficiency to become proficient in English. Four factors make generalizations difficult: (1) differences in instructional approaches used to teach children English and the quality of that instruction, (2) differences in the ways states measure proficiency, (3) differences in student characteristics, and (4) the lack of definitive research on this issue.

Types of Language Assistance for Students With Limited English Proficiency Vary

Two basic approaches are used to instruct students with limited English skills. One uses English and makes little use of a student’s native language (English-based approach), while the other makes much more extensive use of a student’s native language, often for a number of years (bilingual approach). Proponents of an English-based approach expect children to learn English fairly quickly, in 2 to 3 years. For example, in Monroe County, Florida, one of the districts we visited, elementary school children with limited English proficiency receive all formal content area instruction in English, alongside their English-fluent peers. District officials told us they chose this English-based approach in part because they believe children learn English more quickly when they are immersed in it. On average, elementary school students enrolled in the district’s English-language acquisition programs receive services for 3 years.

The bilingual approach is designed to take much longer—often 5 years or more. While bilingual programs vary in both their goals and length, those programs that promote native-language literacy as well as English-language literacy may take 5 to 7 years to complete. For example, the San Antonio School District develops early literacy in Spanish, beginning with prekindergarten instruction. The program is designed to simultaneously develop English literacy, with a full transition to English-only instruction by the sixth grade. District officials said they believe it is important to develop bilingual citizens in a city that has a long bilingual tradition. Most of the 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.

States Define Proficiency Differently

No clear consensus exists about how proficiency should be defined or measured. Educators and researchers have observed that children who speak little or no English may develop “verbal proficiency”—that is, conversational skills on a par with those of their English-speaking peers— 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.

Time Needed to Attain Proficiency Can Vary With Student Characteristics

Research indicates that the length of time needed to become proficient in English can vary from child to child. It can be affected by such factors as the child’s age, socioeconomic background, and amount of formal schooling already received in another language. For example, a 1997 study concluded that the most striking feature about learning a second language is the variability in outcomes. 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.

Research on Time Needed to Attain Proficiency Is Not Definitive

While many evaluations of programs serving children with limited English proficiency have been conducted, we identified very few that focused specifically on the length of time students need to become proficient in English. Our review of existing research yielded three studies that met the following criteria: (1) they addressed the acquisition of English rather than other languages, (2) they focused specifically on the length of time required to become proficient, (3) they reached a specific conclusion about the length of time needed to become proficient in English (as described in app. I), and (4) they had been published. Two of these studies were carried out in Canada and one in the United States (see table 2). The students in each of these studies were schooled primarily in English. In general, the studies concluded that children with limited English proficiency need 4 years or more to develop the language skills needed to perform in academic subject areas on a par with native English-speakers. However, with so few studies available, the results should not be viewed as definitive, 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.

English-Based Approaches Predominate; In the Six States Reviewed, Most Children Receive Services for 4 Years or Less

English-based instruction is more commonly found in the nation’s public schools than bilingual instruction is. However, most students with limited English proficiency attend schools in which both approaches are used. In the six states we reviewed, most children received services for 4 years or less.

English-Based Approaches Are More Common Than Bilingual Approaches

More children with limited English proficiency receive instruction through an English-based approach than through an approach that makes use of their native language, according to data from the Department of Education’s most recent survey on the subject. 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.

Most Children in the Six States Reviewed Spend 4 Years or Less in Programs Aimed at Increasing English Proficiency

We found no national data on the length of time children with limited English proficiency actually spend in programs aimed at helping them become proficient in English. Thus, we contacted education agencies in 12 states with substantial concentrations of students with limited English proficiency to collect any available state-level data on this issue. 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.

OCR’s Interactions With School Districts Were Generally Positive; Some Specific Problems Reported

During the 6 years covered by our review, OCR relied on the three policy documents regarding children with limited English proficiency discussed below. These documents incorporate the Castaneda decision’s 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.

OCR’s Title VI Requirements Are Set Forth in Three Policy Documents

Castaneda set forth a three-part test for determining whether a school district has adopted a satisfactory method for teaching children with limited English proficiency. The federal courts and OCR now generally accept this test as a threshold for determining compliance with title VI. The test is based on a combination of education theory, practice, and results and requires that school district programs (1) be based on sound educational principles, (2) effectively implement the educational principles, and (3) have succeeded in alleviating language barriers.

OCR requirements for title VI compliance are articulated through three policy documents known as the May 1970 memorandum, the December 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.

OCR Staff Generally Did Not Pressure Districts to Adopt a Bilingual Approach and Were Courteous and Professional

Over three-fourths of the school districts responding to our survey (77 percent) reported that when investigating cases OCR staff did not appear to favor bilingual instruction over English-based instruction. For example, one school district noted that OCR staff made no mention of bilingual instruction as a recommendation, but rather they emphasized meeting the needs of students with limited English proficiency. But three districts felt 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.

Some School Districts Reported Problems With OCR’s Investigation

As part of our survey, we gave school district officials the opportunity to make suggestions on how OCR could improve its investigation procedures and to offer any additional comments about OCR’s investigation of their school district. Of the 245 questionnaires returned by school districts, almost half (47 percent) contained comments on what OCR could do to be more effective or improve its investigative process, and over half (53 percent) made additional comments about OCR’s investigation of their school district. Although district officials generally reported positive interactions between their school district and OCR, some respondents commented on the types of problems they encountered during OCR’s investigation process. We sorted these problems into seven categories and have listed them in table 5 in descending order of the frequency of the comments. Several of the problems reported in the survey comments also surfaced in our case investigations.

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).

Concluding Observations

Policymakers are faced with particularly difficult decisions with regard to students with limited English proficiency because their needs are varied and experts disagree about the best methods to teach them. Moreover, there is no clear time line for acquiring English proficiency. Even though different approaches to English language instruction may be effective, many variables may influence the choice of program used by a school, such as the percentage of students with limited English proficiency, the number of languages spoken by students, and students’ family backgrounds. As a result, local decisions about the amount of time needed to attain proficiency and the amount of language support that should be provided may differ.

Available research does not definitively indicate the best teaching methods to use or the amount of time support should be provided. However, guidance from OCR provides the framework and standards that school districts must meet to ensure that students with limited English proficiency have a meaningful opportunity to participate in public education. School districts have the flexibility to select methods of instruction that they deem will produce the best results for their students, so long as they meet OCR requirements.

We found that when OCR followed up on complaints or engaged in compliance reviews, for the most part, it worked effectively with districts. Moreover, few districts changed their approach to teaching students with limited English proficiency after OCR investigations. There have been some problems, however, with OCR’s working relationships with districts, which OCR acknowledges and is taking steps to improve.

Agency Comments

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Education generally agreed with its findings and said it was particularly gratified by the survey results (see app. V). Education also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

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.

Scope and Methodology

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.

Data on Number of Years Students Received Language Services in Arizona and Illinois

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).

School Districts' Impressions of Whether OCR Conveyed Preferences for Type of Language Instruction

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.)

Most School Districts That Added Bilingual Instruction Reported No Pressure by OCR

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.

Comments From the Department of Education

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Malcolm Drewery, Behn Miller, Ellen Soltow, and Virginia Vanderlinde made key contributions to this report.

Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)