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.