No Child Left Behind Act
Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds Gao ID: GAO-07-140 December 7, 2006Title 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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-140, No Child Left Behind Act: Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-140
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Education's Data Improvement
Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds'
which was released on December 8, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2006:
No Child Left Behind Act:
Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for
Distributing Title III Funds:
GAO-07-140:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-140, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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 (see graph). 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.
Figure: Percentage Differences between State-Reported Data (2004-05)
and 2004 ACS Data in 12 Study States:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of state and ACS data.
[End of Figure]
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.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Education provide clear instructions to states on
how and where to provide data specified in NCLBA on the number of
students with limited English proficiency, develop and implement a
methodology for determining which is the more accurate of the two
allowable sources of data, and seek authority to use statistical
methodologies to reduce the volatility associated with ACS data.
Education generally agreed with GAO‘s recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-140].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202)
512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Education Used Census' ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds Because
State Data Were Incomplete and Data Measurement Issues Could Result in
Funding Differences across States:
Under NCLBA, Federal Funding for Students with Limited English
Proficiency and Immigrant Children and Youth Has Increased, and More
School Districts Are Receiving Funds:
States and School Districts Used Title III Funds to Support Programs
for Students with Limited English Proficiency, but Some Cited
Challenges Recruiting Highly Qualified Staff:
Education Provided Oversight and Support to Help States Meet Title III
Requirements:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language
Instruction:
Appendix II: Language Instruction Educational Programs Used by States
in School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Students with
Limited English Proficiency:
Table 2: Volatility in ACS Data:
Table 3: Allocation of Title III Funds for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006:
Table 4: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Immigrant
Children and Youth:
Table 5: Number of States, Including the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds to Support Different
Types of Language Instruction Programs:
Table 6: Number of States, including the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds for Various State-
Level Activities:
Table 7: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language Instruction:
Figures:
Figure 1: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (State
Data):
Figure 2: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (ACS):
Figure 3: Percentage Differences between School Year 2004-05 State-
Reported Data and 2004 ACS Data in 12 Study States:
Figure 4: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based
on a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2005):
Figure 5: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based
on a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2006):
Figure 6: Appropriations for Programs to Support Students with Limited
English Proficiency Fiscal Years 2001-06:
Figure 7: Distribution of Title VII and Title III Funds Provided to
States in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006:
Abbreviations:
ACS: American Community Survey:
ESL: English as a second language:
ESOL: English for Speakers of Other Languages:
NCELA: National Clearinghouse of English Language Acquisition:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 7, 2006:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Select Education:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Lynn Woolsey:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Education:
Reform Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Raúl Grijalva:
House of Representatives:
An estimated 5 million students with limited English proficiency were
enrolled in the nation's public schools in the 2003-04 school year, and
this population has been growing. 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. We addressed how states
can better measure the progress of these students in our July 2006
report.[Footnote 1] NCLBA, which reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, provides for formula-based grants to states,
replacing the discretionary grants authorized under Title VII of the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. In particular, under NCLBA,
the Secretary of Education is required to base the distribution of
funds on the more accurate of two allowable sources of data on the
population of children and youth with limited English proficiency and
immigrants: the Bureau of the Census' (Census) American Community
Survey (ACS) data or state-collected data. However, questions have been
raised about data measurement issues, such as what the data are
designed to measure and how that measurement occurs, that affect the
data the Department of Education (Education) can use to distribute
Title III funds. Congress is interested in the implications of using
each of the two data sources to distribute these funds as well as other
issues related to serving students with limited English proficiency. In
response to congressional interest we agreed to answer the following
questions: 1) What data does Education use to distribute Title III
funds and what are the implications of data measurement issues for the
two allowable sources of data for allocating funds across states? 2)
How have the level and distribution of federal funds to support
students with limited English proficiency changed under NCLBA? 3) How
do states and school districts use Title III funds? 4) How has
Education provided oversight and support to help states meet Title III
requirements?
In doing our work we used a variety of methodological approaches. To
address how data measurement issues affect the distribution of Title
III funds to states and to determine the implications of these issues,
we reviewed documentation and literature about ACS data, including
prior GAO reports, and interviewed Census officials knowledgeable about
ACS. We also analyzed information in 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation
Reports and Consolidated State Performance Reports for the 2003-04 and
2004-05 school years--the most recent years for which these reports
were available--for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. We analyzed the data that states reported related to the number
of students with limited English proficiency and recent immigrant
students. We selected 12 states and collected data related to students
with limited English proficiency and those students classified as
recent immigrants. To assess the reliability of state data, we
interviewed knowledgeable state officials about data quality control
procedures and potential limitations of these data and data systems. We
also reviewed relevant documents. We determined that the data obtained
from these states related to students with limited English proficiency
were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. The selected states have
large or growing populations of these students, are geographically
diverse, and represent more than 75 percent of both Title III funding
and the population of students with limited English proficiency. We
visited 6 of the 12 states--Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois,
Nevada, and Texas--and called officials in the other 6 states--
Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.
We simulated the distribution of Title III funds to the 12 states based
on state-reported data and compared the results to the actual
distribution for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years. To address the
second and third questions, we used information from the states'
Biennial Evaluation Reports, including information on the number of
subgrantees receiving Title III funds in each state and how states used
Title III funds. We also gathered in-depth information on funding and
programs that support students with limited English proficiency from
the12 study states. We reviewed Education documents and interviewed
Education officials, including officials from the Office of English
Language Acquisition, the Office of Budget Service, and the National
Center for Education Statistics, to obtain information about funding
distribution and Education's support to states. In addition, we met
with officials in 11 school districts and 1 school in each of these
districts to collect in-depth information on how funds were used in the
6 states we visited. Finally, to complete the answer to the question
relevant to Education's oversight and support, we reviewed the guidance
Education has issued on Title III and analyzed Education's 21 Title III
monitoring reports completed as of September 30 and states' responses
to these reports as available. We also interviewed state officials in
our 12 study states. We conducted our work from December 2005 to
September 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funding across states;
however, Education has not developed a methodology to determine the
more accurate of the two allowable data sources, and measurement issues
in either allowable source could affect the amount of funding each
state receives. Some states provided incomplete data and others
provided inconsistent data to Education on the number of students with
limited English proficiency in the Consolidated State Performance
Reports, in part, because of unclear instructions. Education officials
told us that their ongoing reviews of state data and preliminary plans
to clarify some report instructions should improve these data.
Education officials also told us they used ACS data primarily because
the state data were incomplete. However, Education officials told us
they have not established criteria or a methodology to evaluate the
relative accuracy of the two data sources once the state data are
complete. ACS and state data each measure different populations in
distinct ways, and it is unclear how well either of the two data
sources captures the population of children with limited English
proficiency. With respect to state data, differences in how states
identify which students have limited English proficiency could affect
the numbers states report to Education and could ultimately affect the
distribution of Title III funds. ACS data present challenges as well.
For example, responses to subjective English ability questions on the
ACS survey showed some inconsistency when Census officials re-
interviewed respondents. In addition, the ACS data showed large
increases and decreases in the numbers of students with limited English
proficiency from 2003 to 2004. Some of these fluctuations could be due
to sampling error. Our simulation of the distribution of Title III
funds for 12 study states for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 using both ACS
data and state-collected counts of students with limited English
proficiency showed that in each year there would be differences in how
much funding each of the 12 study states would receive.
An increase in funding as well as a change in how funds are distributed
contributed to more school districts receiving federal funding to
support students with limited English proficiency since the enactment
of NCLBA. In fiscal year 2006, Congress authorized and Education
provided over $650 million to the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico, mostly through formula grants for programs that
support students with limited English proficiency. This authorization
represented an increase of more than $200 million from fiscal year
2001, the last year Education made discretionary grants for similar
purposes under Title VII of the Improving America's Schools Act. Under
the Title III formula grant program in fiscal year 2006, the funds were
distributed based primarily on the number of students with limited
English proficiency. As a result of the change to a formula grant, more
school districts received funds under Title III than under Title VII.
For example, in three of our study states (California, Texas, and
Illinois) more than 1,900 school districts received Title III funds in
the 2003-04 school year, compared to about 500 school districts
(including districts with schools that received Title VII grants) that
received Title VII funding in fiscal year 2001.
States and school districts reported using Title III funds to support
programs and activities including language instruction and professional
development as well as to support activities for immigrant children and
youth, but some study states and school districts cited challenges in
recruiting qualified staff. All states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico reported that school districts receiving Title III funds
provided a variety of language instruction programs. They also reported
that school districts conducted professional development activities for
teachers or other personnel, such as workshops on effective teaching
strategies for students with limited English proficiency. Forty-six
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported that school
districts conducted activities to support immigrant children and youth,
such as providing tutorials, mentoring, or parent outreach. Similarly,
in the 12 study states and 11 school districts we visited in 6 of these
states, Title III funds were used to support a variety of programs and
activities for students with limited English proficiency, such as
professional development, tutoring, and parent outreach. According to
state Biennial Evaluation Reports, the majority of states provided
professional development to help teachers and other staff meet state
and local certification and licensing requirements for teaching
students with limited English proficiency. However, officials in some
study states identified challenges recruiting qualified staff.
Specifically, officials in 5 of the 12 study states and 8 school
districts we visited noted that difficulty hiring qualified teachers or
other personnel who meet NCLBA requirements presented challenges to
implementing effective programs.
Education provided states oversight, such as Title III-monitoring
visits, and a variety of support, such as providing technical
assistance and guidance through annual conferences and Web casts, to
help states meet Title III requirements. Officials from 5 of the 12
study states reported general satisfaction with the support Education
provided. One area that officials from seven of the study states
identified as difficult was how to address the needs of those students
having both limited English proficiency and disabilities, such as those
with the most significant cognitive disabilities. An Education official
stated that there is limited research on approaches for addressing this
group, 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 states thought
more guidance was needed on developing English language proficiency
assessments that meet NCLBA's requirements. In our July 2006 report, we
recommended that Education identify and provide technical support that
states need to ensure the validity of academic assessments and publish
additional guidance on requirements for assessing English language
proficiency, among other things. 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.
To address issues related to Title III allocation, we recommended that
Education (1) include clear instructions about how to provide correct
and complete state data on the number of students with limited English
proficiency assessed annually for proficiency in English; (2) 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; and (3) seek authority to use
statistical methodologies to reduce the volatility associated with the
ACS data. In comments, Education generally agreed with our
recommendations.
Background:
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.[Footnote 2] 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.[Footnote 3]
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.
Distribution of Title III Funds:
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[Footnote 4] 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
proficiency, and:
* 20 percent based on the population of recently immigrated children
and youth (relative to national counts of these populations).[Footnote
5]
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,[Footnote 6] or data from ACS, which is based on responses
to a series of relevant questions.[Footnote 7]
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[Footnote 8] and to provide grants for professional
development to improve educational services for children with limited
English proficiency.[Footnote 9] 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' Uses of Title III Funds:
School districts are required to use Title III funds to provide
scientifically based language instruction programs for students with
limited English proficiency[Footnote 10] and to provide professional
development to teachers or other personnel.[Footnote 11] 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.
American Community Survey:
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.
State Data (Number of Students with Limited English Proficiency
Assessed):
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.
Oversight:
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 Census' ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds Because
State Data Were Incomplete and Data Measurement Issues Could Result in
Funding Differences across 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 Used ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds across States,
but Has Not Developed a Methodology to Determine the More Accurate of
the Allowable Data--State Data or ACS Data:
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.[Footnote 12]
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.[Footnote 13] For example according to
Education, some states, such as California and Texas, did not assess
all students with limited English proficiency.[Footnote 14] 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 Allowable State Data and the ACS Data Differ in What They Measure
and How That Measurement Occurs:
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.
Table 1: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Students with
Limited English Proficiency:
Feature: Measures provided;
ACS data used to represent the number of students with limited English
proficiency[A]: Number of persons ages 5 to 21 who speak a language
other than English at home and report speaking English less than "very
well";
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number
assessed annually for English proficiency: Number of students with
limited English proficiency in grades K-12 who are assessed for English
proficiency;
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number
identified as limited English proficient: Number of students identified
as limited English proficient in grades K-12.
Feature: How it is measured;
ACS data used to represent the number of students with limited English
proficiency[A]: Self report (sample of population). Collected by Census
Bureau;
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number
assessed annually for English proficiency: State developed/approved
assessments. Collected by state and local officials;
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number
identified as limited English proficient: Varies across states,
includes a Home Language Survey. Collected by state and local
officials.
Feature: Timing;
ACS data used to represent the number of students with limited English
proficiency[A]: Annual average of monthly sample;
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number
assessed annually for English proficiency: Varies; usually in spring;
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number
identified as limited English proficient: Varies: cumulative count,
average, one time snapshot.
Feature: Purpose;
ACS data used to represent the number of students with limited English
proficiency[A]: To comply with Voting Rights Act, Older Americans Act,
and NCLBA requirements; To provide information to serve the needs of
the foreign-born and those with limited English proficiency;
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number
assessed annually for English proficiency: NCLBA requirement to track
the progress to proficiency in English of identified students; NCLBA
provision as allowable data source for Title III allocation;
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number
identified as limited English proficient: To identify children who need
to be offered services.
Feature: Education's role in data collection;
ACS data used to represent the number of students with limited English
proficiency[A]: Work with Census to make sure appropriate questions are
included; Can propose new questions, if necessary;
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number
assessed annually for English proficiency: Has required states to
assess students annually; Has not yet specifically compiled complete
information on the number of students assessed;
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number
identified as limited English proficient: Has required states to
collect and report these data.
Source: Census, Education, and data obtained by Education from ACS.
[A] This column refers to data obtained by Education from ACS, but ACS
collects additional data.
[B] Some states may have data available for children prior to
kindergarten.
[End of table]
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.
Figure 1: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (State
Data):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state-provided data. Art Explosion (images).
[A] A home language survey is a survey asking questions about what
language the child speaks (other than English) at home.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 15]
Figure 2: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (ACS):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ACS information.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 16] 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.[Footnote 17] 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.
Table 2: Volatility in ACS Data:
State Totals without Puerto Rico;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 3,493,118;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 3,942,395;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 3,792,910;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 4.1%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -149,485;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -3.8%.
Totals with Puerto Rico;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 4,102,851;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 4,709,128;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 4,559,643;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 4.7%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -149,485;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -3.2%.
Alabama;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 12,187;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 15,225;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 14,970;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 7.7%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -255;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -1.7%.
Alaska;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 6,126;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 5,500;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 5,090;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -3.5%;
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): -410;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -7.5%.
Arizona;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 108,738;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 117,530;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 101,140;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 2.6%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -16,390;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -14.0%.
Arkansas;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 11,660;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 13,635;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 21,800;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 5.4%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 8,165;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 59.9%.
California;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 1,111,387;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 1,050,180;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 1,075,825;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -1.9%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 25,645;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 2.4%.
Colorado;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 45,866;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 66,865;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 60,430;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 13.4%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -6,435;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -9.6%.
Connecticut;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 31,705;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 28,080;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 33,020;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -4.0%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 4,940;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 17.6%.
Delaware;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 4,877;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 6,030;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 7,015;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 7.3%;
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): 985;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 16.3%.
District of Columbia;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 4,509;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 5,835;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 2,950;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 9.0%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -2,885;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -49.4%.
Florida;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 179,109;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 231,710;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 235,830;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 9.0%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 4,120;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 1.8%.
Georgia;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 62,289;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 93,155;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 78,495;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 14.4%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -14,660;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -15.7%.
Hawaii;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 13,585;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 10,565;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 12,945;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -8.0%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 2,380;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 22.5%.
Idaho;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 8,812;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 12,485;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 12,550;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 12.3%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 65;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 0.5%.
Illinois;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 165,553;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 176,630;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 182,210;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 2.2%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 5,580;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 3.2%.
Indiana;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 26,562;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 57,500;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 70,380;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 29.4%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 12,880;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 22.4%.
Iowa;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 13,632;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 17,370;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 12,900;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.4%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -4,470;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -25.7%.
Kansas;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 17,992;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 15,965;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 17,160;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -3.9%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 1,195;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 7.5%.
Kentucky;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 10,896;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 16,565;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 17,580;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 15.0%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 1,015;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 6.1%.
Louisiana;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 15,265;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 18,740;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 15,235;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 7.1%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -3,505;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -18.7%.
Maine;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 2,503;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 2,590;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 3,865;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 1.2%;
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): 1,275;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 49.2%.
Maryland;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 34,318;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 38,640;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 39,900;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 4.0%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 1,260;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 3.3%.
Massachusetts;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 60,631;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 77,685;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 59,785;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.6%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -17,900;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 23.0%.
Michigan;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 48,542;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 72,320;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 49,255;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 14.2%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -23,065;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -31.9%.
Minnesota;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 37,703;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 44,530;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 48,180;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 5.7%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 3650;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 8.2%.
Mississippi;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 7,168;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 7,410;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 4,775;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 1.1%;
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): -2,635;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -35.6%.
Missouri;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 19,607;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 28,600;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 19,950;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 13.4%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -8,650;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -30.24%.
Montana;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 2,673;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 1,515;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 2,920;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -17.2%;
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): 1,405;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 92.7%.
Nebraska;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 11,013;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 14,100;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 12,460;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.6%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -1,640;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -11.6%.
Nevada;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 34,337;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 48,730;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 58,010;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 12.4%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 9,280;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 19.0%.
New Hampshire;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 3,443;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 5,905;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 5,195;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 19.7%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -710;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 12.0%.
New Jersey;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 99,993;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 121,360;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 100,680;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 6.7%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -20,680;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -17.0%.
New Mexico;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 38,436;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 40,205;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 27,690;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 1.5%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -12,,515;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -31.1%.
New York;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 303,212;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 388,795;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 332,065;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.6%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -56730;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -14.6%.
North Carolina;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 50,797;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 65,600;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 73,710;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.9%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 8,110;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 12.4%.
North Dakota;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 1,512;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 2,190;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 2,095;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 13.1%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -95;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 4.3%.
Ohio;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 43,675;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 42,860;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 48,885;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -0.6%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 6,025;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 14.1%.
Oklahoma;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 18,067;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 31,570;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 20,575;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 20.5%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -10,995;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -34.8%.
Oregon;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 34,654;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 37,755;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 43,100;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 2.9%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 5,345;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 14.2%.
Pennsylvania;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 63,638;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 61,600;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 75,935;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: - 1.1%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 14,335;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 23.3%.
Rhode Island;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 12,170;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 17,865;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 11,875;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 13.7%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -5,990;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004:
-33.5%.
South Carolina;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 14,915;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 16,155;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 15,525;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 2.7%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -630;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 3.9%.
South Dakota;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 3,590;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 4,055;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 2,855;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 4.1%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -1200;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 29.6%.
Tennessee;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 18,069;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 25,595;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 33,180;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 12.3%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 7,585;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 29.6%.
Texas;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 516,819;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 603,105;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 545,330;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 5.3%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -57,775;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -9.6%.
Utah;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 18,171;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 19,215;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 20,590;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 1.9%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 1,375;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 7.2%.
Vermont;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 1,435;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 1,585;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 1,140;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 3.4%;
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): -445;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -28.1%.
Virginia;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 43,377;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 53,935;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 52,640;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 7.5%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -1,295;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -2.4%.
Washington;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 59,677;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 58,840;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 59,350;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -0.5%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 510;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 0.9%.
West Virginia;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 2,495;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 2,465;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 2,320;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -0.4%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -145;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 5.9%.
Wisconsin;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 34,285;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 44,275;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 39,665;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.9%;
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -4,610;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -10.4%.
Wyoming;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 1,443;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 1,780;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 1,885;
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 7.3%;
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): 105;
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 5.9%.
Puerto Rico;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): Census 2000: 609,733;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 766,733;
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less
than "very well"): ACS 2004: [Empty];
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: [Empty];
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): [Empty];
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of Census and ACS data.
[End of table]
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).[Footnote 18]
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.[Footnote 19]
Table 3 shows Education's distribution of Title III funds across states
for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
Table 3: Allocation of Title III Funds for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006:
Totals with Puerto Rico;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 579,164,605;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 617,176,837;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 6.56%.
Alabama;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,969,385;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,174,723;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 6.92%.
Alaska;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 835,169;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 951,490;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 13.93%.
Arizona;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 16,053,667;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 17,374,634;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 8.23%.
Arkansas;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 1,986,077;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,612,909;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 81.91%.
California;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 149,565,827;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 166,955,253;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 11.63%.
Colorado;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 9,947,707;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 9,613,097;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 3.36%.
Connecticut;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 4,440,248;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 5,571,146;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 25.47%.
Delaware;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 876,486;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 1,212,964;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 38.39%.
Florida;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 38,999,401;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 42,709,671;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 9.51%.
Georgia;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 13,281,802;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 13,188,888;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 0.70%.
Hawaii;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 1,645,216;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,298,533;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 39.71%.
Idaho;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,107,363;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,030,270;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -3.66%.
Illinois;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 24,732,083;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 28,836,450;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 16.60%.
Indiana;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 7,644,463;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 10,667,335;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 39.54%.
Iowa;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,907,230;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,020,724;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -30.49%.
Kansas;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,417,540;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,740,852;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 13.37%.
Kentucky;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,404,457;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,118,830;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 29.71%.
Louisiana;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 3,317,197;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,346,119;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 29.27%.
Maine;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 621,027;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 24.21%.
Maryland;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 6,654,183;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 7,437,226;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 11.77%.
Massachusetts;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 11,258,663;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 9,855,919;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 12.46%.
Michigan;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 11,540,302;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 8,594,099;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 25.53%.
Minnesota;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 6,595,273;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 7,098,282;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 7.63%.
Mississippi;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 1,017,471;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 742,851;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -26.99%.
Missouri;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 4,538,410;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,100,690;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 31.68%.
Montana;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 0.00%.
Nebraska;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,143,231;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,130,605;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 0.59%.
Nevada;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 6,865,410;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 8,673,706;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 26.34%.
New Hampshire;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 1,056,420;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 823,886;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -22.01%.
New Jersey;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 20,186,729;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 16,783,993;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 16.86%.
New Mexico;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 5,347,129;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 4,051,960;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 24.22%.
New York;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 53,923,317;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 53,526,957;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 0.74%.
North Carolina;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 9,979,375;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 12,582,872;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 26.09%.
North Dakota;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 0.00%.
Ohio;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 6,567,211;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 8,027,863;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 22.24%.
Oklahoma;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 4,869,319;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,843,474;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 21.07%.
Oregon;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 5,300,358;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 6,888,009;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 29.95%.
Pennsylvania;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 8,982,966;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 11,458,626;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 27.56%.
Rhode Island;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,375,164;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 1,950,367;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 17.88%.
South Carolina;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,588,131;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,502,240;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 3.32%.
South Dakota;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 515,986;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -3.10%.
Tennessee;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 4,546,936;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 5,523,057;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 21.47%.
Texas;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 82,422,240;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 85,865,561;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 4.18%.
Utah;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,888,015;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,652,520;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 26.47%.
Vermont;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 0.00%.
Virginia;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 9,222,809;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 9,823,062;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 6.51%.
Washington;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 8,547,438;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 10,265,825;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 20.10%.
West Virginia;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 610,998;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -18.17%.
Wisconsin;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 6,171,980;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 6,258,643;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 1.40%.
Wyoming;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 0.00%.
District of Columbia;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 922,000;
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 583,745;
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 36.69%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
Note: States studied in bold.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 20] 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).
Figure 3: Percentage Differences between School Year 2004-05 State-
Reported Data and 2004 ACS Data in 12 Study States:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state and ACS data.
Note: GAO collected these state data because, at the time of our
review, Education had not completed its review of the reasonableness of
the Consolidated State Performance Report data on the number of
students with limited English proficiency that was being done to
provide reliable data for input into Education's new national data
system.
[End of figure]
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.
Table 4: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Immigrant
Children and Youth:
Feature: Measures provided;
ACS data on immigrant children and youth[A]: Number of foreign-born
persons ages 3 to21 who arrived in the United States within the 3 years
prior to the survey;
State-collected data on immigrant children and youth[B]: Number of
students in grades K-12 identified as recent immigrants.
Feature: How it is measured;
ACS data on immigrant children and youth[A]: Self report (sample of
population);
State-collected data on immigrant children and youth[B]: States make
determinations based on student records or other information. Some
states told us that they are not able to directly ask students
questions related to their immigration status.
Feature: Timing;
ACS data on immigrant children and youth[A]: Annual average of monthly
sample;
State-collected data on immigrant children and youth[B]: Varies.
Feature: Purpose;
ACS data on immigrant children and youth[A]: To comply with Immigration
Nationality Act and Public Health Service Act requirements; To provide
data to set and evaluate immigration policies and laws;
State-collected data on immigrant children and youth[B]: To comply with
the NCLBA requirement to assess progress of all limited English
proficient children, including immigrant children and youth, to attain
English proficiency.
Feature: Education's role in data collection;
ACS data on immigrant children and youth[A]: Work with Census to make
sure appropriate questions are included; Can propose new questions, if
necessary;
State-collected data on immigrant children and youth[B]: Education
collects this number from the states in the Consolidated State
Performance Reports.
Source: GAO analysis of information from Census, Education, and 12
study states.
[A] This column refers to data obtained by Education from ACS, but ACS
collects additional data.
[B] Some states may have data available for children prior to
kindergarten.
[End of table]
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.
Some States Could Receive More Funding While Others Could Receive Less
Depending on Which Data Source Education Uses:
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).
Figure 4: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based
on a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2005):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ACS and state-reported data.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based
on a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2006):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ACS and state-reported data.
[End of figure]
Under NCLBA, Federal Funding for Students with Limited English
Proficiency and Immigrant Children and Youth Has Increased, and More
School Districts Are Receiving Funds:
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.
Funding for Students with Limited English Proficiency and Immigrant
Students Increased Significantly under Title III from Title VII Levels:
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).
Figure 6: Appropriations for Programs to Support Students with Limited
English Proficiency Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Education data.
[End of figure]
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,[Footnote 21] 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[Footnote 22] 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.)
Figure 7: Distribution of Title VII and Title III Funds Provided to
States in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Education data.
[End of figure]
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.
More School Districts Received Funds for Students with Limited English
Proficiency under Title III Formula-Based Funding Than under the Title
VII Discretionary Grants:
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.[Footnote 23]
States and School Districts Used Title III Funds to Support Programs
for Students with Limited English Proficiency, but Some Cited
Challenges Recruiting Highly Qualified Staff:
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.
Title III Funds Supported Various Programs and Activities, Including
Language Instruction and Professional Development:
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.[Footnote 24] 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.[Footnote 25] 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.)
Table 5: Number of States, Including the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds to Support Different
Types of Language Instruction Programs:
Type of language instruction program: ESL;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 52.
ESL: Sheltered English instruction;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 45.
ESL: Structured English immersion;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 35.
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 17.
ESL: Content-based ESL;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 41.
ESL: Pull-out ESL;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 44.
ESL: Other[B];
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 22.
Type of language instruction program: Bilingual programs;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 40.
Bilingual programs: Dual language;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 30.
Bilingual programs: Two-way immersion;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 17.
Bilingual programs: Transitional bilingual;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 31.
Bilingual programs: Developmental bilingual;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 11.
Bilingual programs: Heritage language;
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 15.
Bilingual programs: Other[C];
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 7.
Source: GAO Analysis of 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports to
the US Department of Education.
[A] Includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
[B] Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III
funds implemented other ESL programs; for example, one state reported
districts used push-in ESL, which it described as providing instruction
in English and native language support if needed to students with
limited English proficiency in the regular classroom. Two states noted
using the inclusion approach, in which the ESL teacher is actually in
the classroom and helps to facilitate the instruction delivery of the
regular classroom teacher, with appropriate modifications for students
with limited English proficiency.
[C] Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III
funds implemented other bilingual programs; for example, one state
noted using foreign language immersion, which it described as a
bilingual program in which students with limited English proficiency
are taught primarily or exclusively through sheltered instruction or a
second language, later combined with native language classes.
[End of table]
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[Footnote 26] 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[Footnote 27] 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.
Table 6: Number of States, including the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds for Various State-
Level Activities:
Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of
the following areas;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 51.
Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of
the following areas: identifying or developing and implementing
measures of English language proficiency;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 50.
Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of
the following areas: helping students with limited English proficiency
meet standards expected of all students;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 48.
Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of
the following areas: implementing English language instructional
programs based on scientific research;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 47.
Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of
the following areas: promoting parental and community participation in
programs for students with limited English proficiency;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 44.
Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of
the following areas: other areas (such as strategic planning);
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 12.
Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 51.
Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities: planning;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 40.
Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities:
administration;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 40.
Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities:
professional development for certification/licensing requirements;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 40.
Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities: interagency
cooperation;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 38.
Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities: evaluation;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 36.
Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities: other;
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 7.
Source: GAO analysis of 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports to
the U.S. Department of Education.
[A] States include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
[End of table]
Similarly, in interviews with officials in 11 school districts and
schools[Footnote 28] 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.
Some States and School Districts Cited Challenges in Recruiting Highly
Qualified Staff:
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[Footnote 29] 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 Provided Oversight and Support to Help States Meet Title III
Requirements:
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.[Footnote
30] 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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
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
[Hyperlink, 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.
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby, Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language
Instruction:
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.
Table 7: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language Instruction:
Type of Program: Bilingual education;
Description: Bilingual education is an educational program in which two
languages are used to provide content matter instruction. Some
bilingual programs use and promote two languages, while in others,
bilingual children are present, but bilingualism is not fostered in the
curriculum.
Type of Program: Dual language program;
Description: Also known as two- way immersion or two-way bilingual
education, dual language programs are designed to serve both language
minority and language majority students concurrently. Two language
groups are put together and instruction is delivered through both
languages. For example, in the United States, native English speakers
might learn Spanish as a foreign language while continuing to develop
their English literacy skills and Spanish-speaking students with
limited English proficiency learn English while developing literacy in
Spanish.
Type of Program: Two-way immersion;
Description: See dual language program.
Type of Program: Transitional bilingual education;
Description: Transitional bilingual education is an instructional
program in which subjects are taught through two languages--English and
the native language of the English language learners--and English is
taught as a second language. English language skills, grade promotion,
and graduation requirements are emphasized, and the native language is
used as a tool to learn content. The primary purpose of these programs
is to facilitate the student with limited English proficiency's
transition to an all-English instructional environment while receiving
academic subject instruction in the native language to the extent
necessary. As proficiency in English increases, instruction through the
native language decreases. Transitional bilingual education programs
vary in the amount of native language instruction provided and the
duration of the. Transitional bilingual education programs may be early-
exit (in which children move from bilingual education programs to
English-only classes in the first or second year of schooling) or late-
exit (in which children participate in bilingual instruction for 3 or
more years of schooling), depending on the amount of time a child may
spend in the program.
Type of Program: Developmental bilingual education;
Description: Developmental bilingual education is a program that
teaches content through two languages and develops both languages with
the goal of bilingualism (e.g., the ability to use two languages) and
biliteracy (e.g., the ability to effectively communicate or understand
thoughts and ideas through two languages' grammatical systems and
vocabulary, using their written symbols).
Type of Program: English as a second language (ESL);
Description: English as a second language is an educational approach in
which English language learners are instructed in the use of the
English language. Their instruction is based on a special curriculum
that typically involves little or no use of the native language,
focuses on language (as opposed to content), and is usually taught
during specific school periods. For the rest of the school day,
students may be placed in mainstream classrooms, an immersion program,
or a bilingual education program. Every bilingual education program has
an English as a second language.
Type of Program: Heritage language;
Description: Heritage language refers to the language a person regards
as their native, home, and/or ancestral language. This covers
indigenous languages (e.g., Navajo) and in-migrant languages (e.g.,
Spanish in the U.S).
Type of Program: Sheltered English instruction;
Description: Sheltered English instruction is an approach used to make
academic instruction in English understandable to English language
learners to help them acquire proficiency in English while at the same
time achieving in content areas. Sheltered English instruction differs
from English as a second language in that English is not taught as a
language with a focus on learning the language. Rather, content
knowledge and skills are the goals. In the sheltered classroom,
teachers use simplified language, physical activities, visual aids, and
the environment to teach vocabulary for concept development in
mathematics, science, social studies, and other subjects.
Type of Program: Structured English immersion;
Description: In this program, language minority students receive all of
their subject matter instruction in English. The teacher uses a
simplified form of English. Students may use their native language in
class; however, the teacher uses only English. The goal is to help
minority language students acquire proficiency in English while at the
same time achieving in content areas.
Type of Program: Specially designed academic instruction in English;
Description: Specially designed academic instruction in English is a
program of instruction in a subject area, delivered in English, which
is specially designed to provide students with limited English
proficiency with access to the curriculum.
Type of Program: Content-based English as a second language;
Description: Content-based English as a second language is an approach
to teaching English as a second language that makes use of
instructional materials, learning tasks, and classroom techniques from
academic content areas as the vehicle for developing language, content,
cognitive, and study skills. English is used as the medium of
instruction.
Type of Program: Pull-out English as a second language;
Description: Pull-out English as a second language is a program in
which students with limited English proficiency are "pulled out" of
regular, mainstream classrooms for special instruction in English as a
second language.
Source: NCELA, [Hyperlink,
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/glossary.html] as viewed on 9/22/2006.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Language Instruction Educational Programs Used by States
in School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04:
State: Ala;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: X;
ESL: Structured English immersion: x;
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Ak;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x;
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Structured English immersion: x;
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Ark;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Structured English immersion: x;
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Ariz;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty];
ESL: Structured English immersion: x;
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Calif;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty];
ESL: Structured English immersion: x;
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Colo;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Conn;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Structured English immersion: x;
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Del;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Structured English immersion: x;
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: D.C;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Fla;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Structured English immersion: x;
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Ga;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty];
ESL: Structured English immersion: x;
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Hawaii;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Iowa;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x;
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty];
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Id;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Ill;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x;
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Ind;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Kan;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Ky;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: La;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Mass;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Me;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Md;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Mich;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Minn;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Mo;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Miss;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Mont;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: N.C;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: N.D;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x;
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Neb;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: N.H;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: N.J;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: N.M;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Nev;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: N.Y;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x;
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Ohio;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x;
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Okla;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Ore;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Penn;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x;
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: P.R;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: R.I;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: S.C;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: S.D;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Tenn;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Tex;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Utah;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Vt;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Va;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: Wash;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Wis;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x;
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x;
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x;
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: x.
State: W.Va;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty];
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English:
[Empty];
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty];
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
State: Wyo;
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty];
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty];
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x;
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x;
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x;
ESL: Content-based ESL: x;
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x;
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education 2002-04 Biennial
Evaluation Report to Congress:
[A] Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III
funds implement other bilingual programs; for example, one state noted
using foreign language immersion, which it described as a bilingual
program in which students with limited English proficiency are taught
primarily or exclusively through sheltered instruction or a second
language, later combined with native language classes.
[B] Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III
funds implement other English as a second language programs; for
example, one state reported districts use push-in ESL, which it
described as providing instruction in English and native language
support if needed to students with limited English proficiency in the
regular classroom. Two states noted using the Inclusion approach, in
which the English as a second language teacher is actually in the
classroom and helps to facilitate the instruction delivery of the
regular classroom teacher, with appropriate modifications for students
with limited English proficiency.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Office Of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, And
Academic Achievement For Limited English Proficient Students:
November 27, 2006:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
I am writing in response to your request for comments on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "No Child Left
Behind: Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis
for Distributing Title III Funds," (GAO-07-140). I appreciate the
opportunity to respond to the recommendations made in the report and to
provide you with additional information on how the U.S. Department of
Education is supporting the effective distribution and use of the state
formula grant funds under the provisions of Title Ill of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
The Department takes very seriously the need to collect accurate data
on limited English proficient (LEP) students and to distribute Title
III funds in an equitable and efficient manner. The Department believes
that the nation's LEP students will benefit from the effective
allocation of Title III state formula funds because these funds provide
important resources that schools, districts, and states use in serving
LEP children. We appreciate the specific recommendations made in the
report and respond to each of them below.
Your first recommendation concerns the need for reliable and complete
state data on the number of students with limited English proficiency
assessed annually. Specifically, you recommend that the Secretary of
Education clarify the instructions on the portions of the Consolidated
State Performance Report (CSPR) relevant to the collection of data on
the number of students with limited English proficiency assessed
annually for English proficiency.
The Department has addressed this recommendation in the revised 2006
CSPR (Part I) data collection form for 2005-2006 data. The Department
clarified data definitions that had been identified by states in
previous collections as cumbersome or ambiguous. In an effort to
increase transparency and to solicit input from Title Ill and state
data administrators, the Department invited all states to attend
regional meetings in the spring of 2006 to discuss LEP data collection
issues. A total of 39 states attended the regional meetings. The
Department then shared with all states the information collected in
these meetings. Drawing on this information, we made changes to the
2006 Title III Biennial Report form and have proposed changes to the
2007 CSPR (Part I) form. The 2006 Title 111 Biennial Report form is now
available electronically. The online format, with built-in data checks,
provides the opportunity for the reports to be pre-populated with data
previously entered in the CSPR (Part 1) and the Education Data Exchange
Network (EDEN) report, reducing significantly the burden for states. In
addition, the automatic migration of data from the CSPR to other
reports required by Congress creates a consistent data reporting
system.
NCLB provides a definition of LEP that will be used for all data
collection related to LEP students, thus providing stability for states
in building their data collection systems. Furthermore, revisions to
data definitions and data collection concerning LEP students have been
coordinated among the Department's data collection and reporting
initiatives: EDEN/EDFacts; CSPR; and the Title III Biennial Report.
Through this effort, the Department has developed a more comprehensive
approach with targeted questions that will clarify the data elements
needed to report accurately the LEP enrollment and assessment data to
Congress. State data submission into the new EDEN system will be
mandatory starting with the 2006-2007 data collection, providing the
opportunity for the Department to have a more complete data system, to
coordinate the data definition and data collection efforts, and to
eliminate duplication. Most importantly, the Department will have the
ability to analyze the data and provide feedback to the states on
funding and other valuable issues related to the achievement of LEP
students.
Your second recommendation deals with the basis for the Department's
distribution of Title III funds. Specifically, you recommend that the
Secretary of Education develop and implement a methodology for
determining the relative accuracy of the two allowable sources of data,
American Community Survey (ACS) and state data on the number of
students with limited English proficiency assessed annually, for Title
III allocations to states.
As indicated in the report, under the Title III legislation, the
Secretary of Education is required to base the distribution of funds on
the more accurate of two allowable sources of data on the population of
children and youth with limited English proficiency and immigrant
students: the Bureau of the Census' ACS data or state-collected data.
As the report correctly points out, state data on the number of
students with limited English proficiency were incomplete and of poor
quality during the first several years of the new program. Some states
provided incomplete data and others provided inconsistent data to the
Department on the number of students with limited English proficiency
in the CSPR. Differences in how states identify which students have
limited English proficiency also could affect the data they report to
the Department and, as the report indicates, could ultimately affect
the distribution of Title III funds. Though, as the report notes, ACS
data present challenges as well, the ACS does provide more complete and
consistent counts of individuals with limited English proficiency.
Therefore, the decision on which data set to use in making Title III
state allocations was not difficult. At this time, we do not see a need
to develop an elaborate methodology to compare the relative accuracy of
the two data sources. However, in the future, as the quality of the
state data improves, it will be appropriate to implement a more formal
methodology, and consistent with this recommendation, we will do so.
Your third and final recommendation refers to the volatility in annual
ACS data. Specifically, you recommend that the Secretary consider using
statistical methodologies, such as the use of multi-year averages, for
as long as the Department uses the ACS data.
With regard to the use of multi-year averages, the current law requires
us to use the most up-to-date data, which we have determined are the
most recent year's data. The issue of whether multi-year data should be
used is one that the Congress might want to address in reauthorization.
As a final note, your report notes several areas in which the
Department is working to improve the way states, districts, and schools
use Title III funds to improve the English language and academic
proficiency of LEP students and recommends several areas where we might
identify and provide technical support and guidance to states to ensure
the validity of academic and language proficiency assessments for LEP
students. Toward that end, in August, Secretary Spellings announced the
LEP Partnership - an initiative designed to explore and resolve, in
partnership with the states, many of the English language acquisition,
academic achievement, assessment, and instructional issues that
confront our nation's LEP students and the schools and districts they
attend. The LEP Partnership is providing technical expertise and
support to state efforts to better address the needs of LEP students.
The Department is partnering with the National Council of La Raza, the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Council of
Chief State School Officers, the Comprehensive Center on Assessment and
Accountability, and the National Center on English Language Acquisition
on this effort. All states are invited to be a part of the initiative.
The Department intends to disseminate across all states the findings,
practices, policy recommendations, assessment instruments, and tested
accommodation practices developed through the Partnership. More
information on the initiative can be found at [Hyperlink,
http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/lep-partnership/index.html].
Thank you again for taking the time to research and report on the
provisions of NCLB related to the accurate distribution of Title III
funds. The Department values the work that you have done to provide
rich and insightful analyses about the current status of LEP data and
the implications for the accurate distribution of the Title III state
formula grant funds. We will use the findings and recommendations to
improve our allocations to states and ultimately to improve the quality
of Title III implementation around the country.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Kathleen Leos:
Assistant Deputy Secretary and Director:
Office of English Language Acquisition:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help
States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English
Proficiency, GAO-06-815 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006).
[2] The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002))
and the Improving America's Schools Act (Pub. L. No. 103-382 (1994))
amended and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.
[3] GAO-06-815.
[4] The total amount of Title III funding allotted to Puerto Rico is
not to exceed 0.5 percent of the total amount allotted to all states in
a fiscal year.
[5] NCLBA defines immigrant children and youth to mean individuals aged
3 to 21 who were not born in the United States and who have not been
attending school in the U.S. for more than 3 full academic years.
Hereinafter the term "recently immigrated children and youth" will
refer to this population.
[6] Under section 1111(b)(7) of NCLBA, all students with limited
English proficiency are required to be assessed annually for English
proficiency (across three domains: oral language, reading, and
writing). Since all students with limited English proficiency are to be
assessed, the number of those assessed should be reasonably close to
the number of students identified as having limited English
proficiency.
[7] NCLBA directed Education to base the distribution of funding on
Census data or data submitted by states for the first 2 years after the
passage of NCLBA.
[8] The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and
Language Instruction Educational Programs collects, analyzes,
synthesizes, and disseminates information about language instruction
educational programs for children with limited English proficiency.
(See Hyperlink, http://www.ncela.gwu.edu, downloaded Sept. 22, 2006.)
[9] Funding is also reserved for continuation awards to recipients who
received multiple year grants and fellowships under Title VII for the
complete period of the grant or fellowship.
[10] Language instruction programs used by districts include both
English as a Second Language (ESL), an approach that typically involves
little or no use of the native language, and bilingual education, which
may use and promote two languages. Appendix I provides additional
information on different types of ESL and bilingual education programs.
[11] NCLBA states that this professional development should be designed
to improve the instruction and assessment of students with limited
English proficiency and to enhance the ability of teachers to use
curricula assessment measures and instruction strategies for these
students. It also states that activities should be of sufficient
intensity and duration to have a positive and lasting impact on teacher
performance.
[12] In fiscal year 2004, Education sought and received authority to
continue to use Census data beyond the 2-year time frame set forth in
NCLBA. Education officials told us that the pilot ACS data available
for the fiscal year 2004 distribution of funds were not suitable to be
used as the basis of Title III-funding distribution due to limitations
of the sample size used.
[13] Education relied on their contractor's analysis of the
Consolidated State Performance Report data related to students with
limited English proficiency and thus did not have a state-by-state
analysis of the number of states that did not provide data on the
number of students with limited English proficiency who were assessed
for English proficiency or those states that provided partial data for
school year 2004-05.
[14] In such cases the number of students identified as having limited
English proficiency--which is the number we use in our analyses in this
report--could be greater than the number of students assessed annually
for English proficiency.
[15] See Paula Schneider, Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and
Evaluation Program, Topic Report No. 12 , TR-12, Content and Data
Quality in Census 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, D.C.: March
2004).
[16] Census officials provided a 1989 study, How Good is How Well, that
discussed a 1982 study conducted by Education exploring the
relationship between answering "very well" on the English ability
questions and performance on a language ability test. The study focused
on adults (not on students with limited English proficiency). The
Census study explored the relationships between responses to the
English ability questions and other factors linked to English usage. We
were not able to assess the reliability of these studies.
[17] ACS was not fully funded prior to 2005; the 2003 and 2004 data
were based on a sample that was approximately one third the size of the
full sample of 2005. Consequently, the sampling errors associated with
the smaller sample are larger than they would be with the full sample.
[18] The 7 states that had at least a 10 percent drop in the ACS number
Education uses to represent the number of students with limited English
proficiency and an increase in the number of recent immigrants are:
Arizona, Georgia, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and
Wisconsin.
[19] ACS data will continue to experience some degree of volatility due
to the introduction of the full household sample size for 2005, changes
in response rates, changes in annual population controls (which
determine the annual changes in the population and its
characteristics), and the incorporation of information from the 2010
Decennial Census.
[20] In all but one of the 12 study states, the state data were outside
the margin of error--that is they fell outside the 90 percent
confidence interval provided by ACS. Florida's data were within the
margin of error.
[21] Fiscal year 2006 is the most recent year for which we have state
by state Title III funding allocations.
[22] Of the $446 million appropriated for Title VII in fiscal year
2001, about $14 million was retained by Education to support the
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education and other support
services.
[23] We did not assess the reliability of this estimate.
[24] Appendix I provides descriptions of different types of language
instruction programs.
[25] Sheltered English instruction and pull-out ESL are both language
instruction programs in which students with limited English proficiency
are instructed in English. The sheltered English instruction helps
students with limited English proficiency become proficient in English
while at the same time learning academic content. The pull-out approach
moves students with limited English proficiency out of the regular
classroom for special instruction in English as a second language.
[26] NCLBA allows states to reserve up to 5 percent of Title III funds
for state-level activities.
[27] Illinois did not complete the relevant checklists in the 2002-04
Biennial Evaluation Report. However, Illinois described implementing
certain state-level activities in the response narrative in the
Biennial. Illinois officials also told us, during our visit, that the
state reserves state-level funds.
[28] We visited one school in each of the 11 districts.
[29] Core subjects include English, reading or language arts,
mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government,
economics, arts, history, and geography.
[30] See GAO-06-815 for further information.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
