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

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