No Child Left Behind Act
Assistance from Education Could Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency Gao ID: GAO-06-815 July 26, 2006For the Spanish translation of the highlights page for this document, see GAO-06-1111. Ley para que ningun nino se quede atras: La ayuda del Departamento de Educacion puede contribuir a que los Estados midan mejor el progreso de los alumnos que no dominan bien el ingles. GAO-06-1111, Julio de 2006. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) focused attention on the academic achievement of more than 5 million students with limited English proficiency. Obtaining valid test results for these students is challenging, given their language barriers. This report describes (1) the extent to which these students are meeting annual academic progress goals, (2) what states have done to ensure the validity of their academic assessments, (3) what states are doing to ensure the validity of their English language proficiency assessments, and (4) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) is supporting states' efforts to meet NCLBA's assessment requirements for these students. To collect this information, we convened a group of experts and studied five states (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Texas). We also conducted a state survey and reviewed state and Education documents.
For the Spanish translation of the highlights page for this document, see GAO-06-1111. Ley para que ningun nino se quede atras: La ayuda del Departamento de Educacion puede contribuir a que los Estados midan mejor el progreso de los alumnos que no dominan bien el ingles. GAO-06-1111, Julio de 2006. In the 2003-2004 school year, state data showed that the percentage of students with limited English proficiency scoring proficient on a state's language arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state's annual progress goals in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained data. Further, our review of data 49 states submitted to Education showed that in most states, these students generally did not perform as well as other student groups on state mathematics tests. Factors other than student knowledge, such as how a state establishes its annual progress goals, can influence whether states meet their goals. For their academic assessments, officials in our five study states reported taking steps to follow generally accepted test development procedures and to ensure the validity and reliability of these tests for students with limited English proficiency, such as reviewing test questions for bias. However, our group of experts expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing these students in a valid manner, noting that some states lack the resources and technical expertise to take appropriate steps to ensure the validity of tests for these students. Further, Education's peer reviews of assessments in 38 states found that 25 states did not provide adequate evidence to ensure the validity or reliability of academic test results for these students. To improve the validity of these test results, most states offer accommodations, such as a bilingual dictionary. However, our experts reported that research is lacking on what accommodations are effective in mitigating language barriers. A minority of states used native language or alternate assessments for students with limited English proficiency, but these tests are costly to develop and are not appropriate for all students. Many states are implementing new English language proficiency assessments in 2006 to meet NCLBA requirements; as a result, complete information on their validity and reliability is not yet available. In 2006, 22 states used tests developed by one of four state consortia. Consortia and state officials reported taking steps to ensure the validity of these tests, such as conducting field tests. A 2005 Education-funded technical review of available documentation for 17 English language proficiency tests found insufficient documentation of the validity of these assessments' results. Education has offered a variety of technical assistance to help states assess students with limited English proficiency, such as peer reviews of states' academic assessments. However, Education has issued little written guidance to states on developing English language proficiency tests. Officials in one-third of the 33 states we visited or directly contacted told us they wanted more guidance about how to develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements. Education has offered states some flexibility in how they assess students with limited English proficiency, but officials in our study states told us that additional flexibility is needed to ensure that progress measures appropriately track the academic progress of these students.
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-06-815, No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-815
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could
Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English
Proficiency' which was released on July 26, 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:
July 2006:
No Child Left Behind Act:
Assistance from Education Could Help States Better Measure Progress of
Students with Limited English Proficiency:
No Child Left Behind Act:
GAO-06-815:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-815, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) focused attention on the
academic achievement of more than 5 million students with limited
English proficiency. Obtaining valid test results for these students is
challenging, given their language barriers. This report describes (1)
the extent to which these students are meeting annual academic progress
goals, (2) what states have done to ensure the validity of their
academic assessments, (3) what states are doing to ensure the validity
of their English language proficiency assessments, and (4) how the U.S.
Department of Education (Education) is supporting states‘ efforts to
meet NCLBA‘s assessment requirements for these students. To collect
this information, we convened a group of experts and studied five
states (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Texas). We
also conducted a state survey and reviewed state and Education
documents.
What GAO Found:
In the 2003-2004 school year, state data showed that the percentage of
students with limited English proficiency scoring proficient on a
state‘s language arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state‘s
annual progress goals in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which
we obtained data. Further, our review of data 49 states submitted to
Education showed that in most states, these students generally did not
perform as well as other student groups on state mathematics tests.
Factors other than student knowledge, such as how a state establishes
its annual progress goals, can influence whether states meet their
goals.
For their academic assessments, officials in our five study states
reported taking steps to follow generally accepted test development
procedures and to ensure the validity and reliability of these tests
for students with limited English proficiency, such as reviewing test
questions for bias. However, our group of experts expressed concerns
about whether all states are assessing these students in a valid
manner, noting that some states lack the resources and technical
expertise to take appropriate steps to ensure the validity of tests for
these students. Further, Education‘s peer reviews of assessments in 38
states found that 25 states did not provide adequate evidence to ensure
the validity or reliability of academic test results for these
students. To improve the validity of these test results, most states
offer accommodations, such as a bilingual dictionary. However, our
experts reported that research is lacking on what accommodations are
effective in mitigating language barriers. A minority of states used
native language or alternate assessments for students with limited
English proficiency, but these tests are costly to develop and are not
appropriate for all students.
Many states are implementing new English language proficiency
assessments in 2006 to meet NCLBA requirements; as a result, complete
information on their validity and reliability is not yet available. In
2006, 22 states used tests developed by one of four state consortia.
Consortia and state officials reported taking steps to ensure the
validity of these tests, such as conducting field tests. A 2005
Education-funded technical review of available documentation for 17
English language proficiency tests found insufficient documentation of
the validity of these assessments‘ results.
Education has offered a variety of technical assistance to help states
assess students with limited English proficiency, such as peer reviews
of states‘ academic assessments. However, Education has issued little
written guidance to states on developing English language proficiency
tests. Officials in one-third of the 33 states we visited or directly
contacted told us they wanted more guidance about how to develop tests
that meet NCLBA requirements. Education has offered states some
flexibility in how they assess students with limited English
proficiency, but officials in our study states told us that additional
flexibility is needed to ensure that progress measures appropriately
track the academic progress of these students.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education (1) support research on
accommodations, (2) identify and provide technical support states need
to ensure the validity of academic assessments, (3) publish additional
guidance on requirements for assessing English language proficiency,
and (4) explore ways to provide additional flexibility for measuring
annual progress for these students. Education generally agreed with our
recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-815].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie S. Shaul at (202)
512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Students with Limited English Proficiency Performed below Progress
Goals in 2004 in Two-Thirds of States, but States We Studied Are
Working to Improve Student Academic Performance:
Selected States Considered Language Issues When Developing Academic
Assessments, but Validity and Reliability Concerns Remain:
Most States Implemented New English Language Proficiency Assessments
but Faced Challenges Establishing Their Validity and Reliability:
Education Has Provided Assistance, but States Reported Need for
Additional Guidance and Flexibility:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: GAO's Group of Experts on Assessing the Academic Knowledge
of Students with Limited English Proficiency:
Appendix II: Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for Student Groups:
Appendix III: Percentage of Districts Making AYP Goals for Mathematics
for Students with Limited English Proficiency:
Appendix IV: Proficiency Scores on Mathematics Tests for All Students
and Students with Limited English Proficiency:
Appendix V: Enhanced Assessment Consortia Participation:
Appendix VI: English Language Proficiency Assessments Used in the 2005-
2006 School Year, by State:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Selected Provisions from Title I of NCLBA:
Table 2: Selected Provisions from Title III of NCLBA:
Table 3: Examples of English Language Proficiency and Language Arts
Standards for a Fifth-Grade Student:
Table 4: Percentage of Elementary Students Scoring at the Proficient
Level or Above on State Mathematics Assessment for Selected Student
Groups, School Year 2003-2004:
Table 5: Examples of Issues Relating to Assessing Students with Limited
English Proficiency Raised in Education's Peer Review Reports:
Table 6: Most Frequently Cited Accommodations in 42 States:
Figures:
Figure 1: NCLBA's Requirements for Students with Limited English
Proficiency under Title I and Title III:
Figure 2: School Year 2003-2004 Comparison of Percentage of Students
with Limited English Proficiency Who Achieved Proficient Scores in
Language Arts and Mathematics with State-Established Progress Goals:
Figure 3: Percentage of Districts in 18 Selected States Reporting
Adequate Yearly Progress Results in School Year 2003-2004 for Students
with Limited English Proficiency:
Figure 4: Use of Native Language and Alternate Assessments for Students
with Limited English Proficiency:
Figure 5: Type of English Language Proficiency Assessment Administered
in 2005-2006 School Year:
Figure 6: Movement of Students In and Out of Limited English Proficient
Student Group and Other Student Groups:
Figure 7: Process for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for a
Student Group:
Abbreviations:
AYP: adequate yearly progress:
CELLA: Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment:
ELDA: English Language Development Assessment:
ESL: English as a second language:
GAO: Government Accountability Office:
MWAC: Mountain West Assessment Consortium:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
PA EAG: Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant:
SCASS: State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards:
WIDA: World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 26, 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 children with limited English proficiency were
enrolled in U.S. public schools during the 2003-2004 school year,
representing about 10 percent of the total school population. They
speak over 400 languages, with almost 80 percent of students with
limited English proficiency speaking Spanish. These students have
difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English
that interfere with their ability to successfully participate in
school. Because of these language barriers, obtaining information on
the academic knowledge of these students from an assessment that is
valid and reliable (i.e., it measures what it is designed to measure in
a consistent manner) presents challenges. As a result, students with
limited English proficiency have historically been excluded from
statewide assessments, leaving states and districts with little
information about how these students are performing academically.
In 1994, the enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act required
states to assess these students, to the extent practicable, in the
manner most likely to yield accurate information about their academic
knowledge. Subsequently, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLBA) with the goal of increasing academic achievement and
closing achievement gaps among different student groups. Specifically,
NCLBA required states to demonstrate that all students have reached the
"proficient" level on a state's language arts and mathematics
assessments by 2014. States are obligated to demonstrate "adequate
yearly progress" toward this goal each year--that is, they must show
that increasing percentages of students are reaching proficient
achievement levels over time. Students with limited English
proficiency, along with other targeted student groups, must separately
meet the same academic progress goals as other students. Further, NCLBA
required states to annually assess the English proficiency of these
students and to demonstrate that they are making progress in becoming
proficient in English. Because these students are defined by a
temporary characteristic--unlike other student groups targeted in
NCLBA--once a state determines that students with limited English
proficiency have attained English proficiency, they are no longer
included in the group of students with limited English proficiency,
although Education has given states some flexibility in this area.
Given your interest in the academic achievement of these students and
the validity and reliability of assessments used to measure their
performance, we are providing information on (1) the extent to which
students with limited English proficiency are meeting adequate yearly
progress goals and what selected states and districts are doing to
support the improved academic performance of these students, (2) what
states have done to ensure that results from language arts and
mathematics assessments are valid and reliable for students with
limited English proficiency, (3) how states are assessing English
proficiency and what they are doing to address the validity and
reliability of these assessment results, and (4) how the Department of
Education (Education) is supporting states' efforts to meet NCLBA's
assessment requirements for these students.
To determine the extent to which students with limited English
proficiency are meeting adequate yearly progress goals, we collected
school year 2003-2004 state-level data for 48 states, including the
District of Columbia. We obtained the majority of our data from state
Web sites and, when necessary, contacted state officials for these
data. Three states did not publish data in a format that allowed us to
determine if students with limited English proficiency had met the
state's adequate yearly progress goals. We also collected additional
achievement data for 2003-2004 at the school district level from 18
states. We chose a nonrandom sample of states with the largest
percentage of the national population of students with limited English
proficiency, states with the largest percentage increases in these
students between 1990 and 2000, and included at least 2 states from
each region represented by Education's regional education laboratories
(with the exception of one region that included only one state). When
district-level achievement data for school year 2003-2004 were not
available on a state's Web site or a state had more than 500 districts,
we requested the data directly from state officials; 2 states did not
respond to our request for these data. We determined that the state and
district data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We studied 5
states in depth (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and
Texas) to collect detailed information from state and district
officials on their assessment practices, efforts to ensure the validity
and reliability of their assessments for students with limited English
proficiency, and their approaches to improve the performance of these
students. These 5 states had relatively large percentages of students
with limited English proficiency or had experienced large increases in
their populations of these students. In addition, we selected these
particular states to ensure variation in geography, types of English
language proficiency tests used, and use of different approaches to
assessing the content knowledge of this student group. To obtain
information on the assessments used by other states, we reviewed
accountability workbooks and other documents that states submit to
Education, available reports from state monitoring visits conducted by
Education, and available peer review reports from 38 states on their
assessment and accountability systems. In addition to studying 5
states, we directly contacted officials in 28 states to confirm what
English language proficiency assessment they planned to administer in
2005-2006 and to discuss what guidance Education had provided regarding
these assessments. We also interviewed officials from major test
development companies, from state consortia that are developing English
language proficiency assessments, and from Education. To assess state
efforts to ensure the validity and reliability of their assessments, we
reviewed national assessment standards developed by professional
organizations and convened a group of experts to discuss states'
efforts to develop and implement valid and reliable academic
assessments for students with limited English proficiency (see app. I
for more information about these experts). Finally, we obtained
information from the 50 states and the District of Columbia on their
use of native language assessments using a short e-mail survey. We
conducted our review between June 2005 and June 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
In school year 2003-2004, state data showed that the percentage of
students with limited English proficiency scoring proficient on a
state's language arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state's
annual progress goals in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which
we obtained data. To help these students progress academically, state
and district officials in the 5 states we visited reported using a
variety of strategies, including training teachers to incorporate
language development into academic classes. Further, our review of data
49 states submitted to Education showed that the performance of
students with limited English proficiency on states' mathematics
assessments for elementary school students was lower than that of the
total student population in all of these states but 1. Although the
student groups are not mutually exclusive, in most of the 49 states,
the performance of students with limited English proficiency was
generally lower than that of other groups, such as economically
disadvantaged students. Factors other than student academic knowledge,
however, can influence whether states and districts meet their academic
progress goals for students with limited English proficiency, such as
how a state establishes its annual progress goals. To support improved
academic progress for these students, district and state officials we
spoke with in our 5 study states reported using strategies similar to
those considered good practices for all students. In particular, they
cited providing teacher training focused on these students, having
school leadership focused on their needs and using data to target
interventions as key to the success of these students.
For assessments of academic knowledge in language arts and mathematics,
we found that our 5 study states have taken some steps to address the
specific challenges associated with assessing students with limited
English proficiency. Although officials in these states reported taking
steps to follow generally accepted test development procedures to
ensure the validity and reliability of results from these assessments
for the general student population, these assessments may not provide
valid results for students with limited English proficiency. Our group
of experts expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing
these students in a valid and reliable manner, noting that states are
not taking all the critical steps needed to do so. Although states have
been required to include these students in their assessments since
1994, Education's recent peer reviews of 38 states cited 25 for not
providing sufficient evidence on the validity or reliability of results
for students with limited English proficiency. In 1 state, for example,
procedures to develop test questions did not include an adequate check
for language biases. To increase the validity and reliability of
assessment results for this population, most states offered
accommodations, such as offering extra time to complete the test and
using a bilingual dictionary. While most states offered some
accommodations, our experts indicated that research is lacking on what
specific accommodations are appropriate for students with limited
English proficiency. Our survey of states and review of state documents
found that 16 states used statewide native language assessments for
some grades and 13 states used statewide alternate assessments (such as
portfolios of classroom work) in 2005 to better accommodate certain
students with limited English proficiency. While such assessments may
improve the validity of test scores, our group of experts noted that
developing native language and alternate assessments requires resources
and expertise that not all states have. Further, our experts told us
that native language assessments may not provide valid results for
students who are not receiving instruction in their native language. In
addition, developing assessments in all languages spoken by students
with limited English proficiency would likely not be practicable for
most states.
With respect to English language proficiency assessments, many states
are still in the preliminary phases of developing and administering new
assessments to measure students' progress in learning English, as
required by NCLBA; as a result, complete information on the validity
and reliability of these assessments is not yet available. To assess
these students in the 2005-2006 school year, 22 states used new
assessments developed by one of four state consortia; 8 states used
customized, off-the-shelf assessments offered by testing companies; 14
states used off-the-shelf assessments; and 7 states used state-
developed assessments. While a few states already had the required
English language proficiency assessments in place, others will be
administering these assessments for the first time in 2006; as a
result, states and test developers are still collecting evidence to
document the validity and reliability of the results for most of these
tests. An Education-funded study by a national education research
organization reviewed the available documentation for the English
language proficiency assessments used by 33 states in the 2005-2006
school year and found insufficient documentation on the validity and
reliability of results from these assessments.
Education has offered states support and technical assistance in a
variety of ways to help them appropriately assess students with limited
English proficiency, such as providing training, conducting peer
reviews of states' academic assessments, and providing flexibility in
assessing these students. However, Education has issued little written
guidance to states on developing English language proficiency
assessments that meet NCLBA's requirements and on tracking the progress
of students in acquiring English. Officials in about one-third of the
33 states we visited or contacted told us that they were uncertain
about Education's requirements for the new English language proficiency
assessments and that they wanted more guidance. In addition, our group
of experts reported that some states need more assistance to develop
language arts and mathematics assessments that provide valid measures
of the academic knowledge of this group of students. To support states'
efforts to incorporate these students into their accountability systems
for academic performance, Education has offered states some
flexibilities in how they track progress goals for these students. For
example, students who have been in the United States for less than 1
year do not have to be assessed for language arts. However, several
state and district officials in the 5 states we studied told us that
additional flexibility, such as excluding students from testing for a
longer period, is needed to ensure that adequate yearly progress
measures accurately track the academic progress of these students.
To help states improve their assessment of students with limited
English proficiency, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Education (1) support additional research on accommodations, (2)
identify and provide additional technical support states need to ensure
the validity and reliability of academic assessments for these
students, (3) publish more detailed guidance on assessing the English
language proficiency of these students, and (4) explore ways to provide
additional flexibility with respect to measuring annual progress for
these students. In its comments, Education generally agreed with our
recommendations.
Background:
Students with limited English proficiency are a diverse and complex
group. They speak many languages and have a tremendous range of
educational needs and include refugees with little formal schooling and
students who are literate in their native languages. Accurately
assessing the academic knowledge of these students in English is
challenging. If a student responds incorrectly to a test item, it may
not be clear if the student did not know the answer or misunderstood
the question because of language barriers.
Several approaches are available to allow students to demonstrate their
academic knowledge while they are becoming proficient in English,
although each poses challenges. First, a state can offer assessments in
a student's native language. However, vocabulary in English is not
necessarily equivalent in difficulty to the vocabulary in another
language. As a result, a test translated from English may not have the
same level of difficulty as the English version. If a state chooses to
develop a completely different test in another language instead of
translating the English version, the assessment should measure the same
standards and reflect the same level of difficulty as the English
version of the test to ensure its validity. Second, states can also
offer accommodations, such as providing extra time to take a test,
allowing the use of a bilingual dictionary, reading test directions
aloud in a student's native language, or administering the test in a
less distracting environment. Accommodations alter the way a regular
assessment is administered, with the goal of minimizing the language
impediments faced by students with limited English proficiency; they
are intended to level the playing field without providing an unfair
advantage to these students. Finally, states can use alternate
assessments that measure the same things as the regular assessment
while minimizing the language burden placed on the student. For
example, an alternate assessment can be a traditional standardized test
that uses simplified English or relies more on pictures and diagrams.
It can also be a portfolio of a student's class work that demonstrates
academic knowledge. In either case, studies would be needed to
demonstrate that the alternate assessment is equivalent to the regular
assessment.
NCLBA Requirements:
Title I of NCLBA seeks to ensure that all children have a fair and
equal opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and become
proficient in academic subjects. It requires states to administer tests
in language arts and mathematics to all students in certain grades and
to use these tests as the primary means of determining the annual
performance of states, districts, and schools. These assessments must
be aligned with the state's academic standards--that is, they must
measure how well a student has demonstrated his or her knowledge of the
academic content represented in these standards. States are to show
that increasing percentages of students are reaching the proficient
level on these state tests over time. NCLBA also requires that students
with limited English proficiency receive reasonable accommodations and
be assessed, to the extent practicable, in the language and form most
likely to yield accurate data on their academic knowledge. Somewhat
similar versions of these provisions, such as reporting testing results
for different student groups, had been included in legislation enacted
in 1994. One new NCLBA requirement was for states to annually assess
the English language proficiency of students identified as having
limited English proficiency. Table 1 summarizes some key Title I
provisions from NCLBA.
Table 1: Selected Provisions from Title I of NCLBA:
State academic assessments;
Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, states must implement annual,
high-quality state assessments in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8
and at least once in high school.[A] These assessments must be aligned
with challenging state academic standards and must be "consistent with
relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards
for such assessments" and used in ways that are valid and reliable.
States must provide for the participation of all students, including
those with limited English proficiency.
Academic assessment provisions related to students with limited English
proficiency;
Students with limited English proficiency are to be assessed in a valid
and reliable manner. In addition, they must be provided with reasonable
accommodations and be assessed, to the extent practicable, "in the
language and form most likely to yield accurate data" on their academic
knowledge. In addition, for language arts, students who have been in
U.S. schools for 3 years or more generally must be assessed in English.
Adequate yearly progress;
States must set annual goals that lead to all students achieving
proficiency in language arts and mathematics by 2014. To be deemed as
having made adequate yearly progress for a given year, each district
and school must show that the requisite percentage of each designated
student group, as well as the student population as a whole, met the
state proficiency goal (that is, the percentage of students who have
achieved the proficient level on the state's assessments). Schools must
also show that at least 95 percent of students in each designated
student group participated in these assessments. Further, schools must
also demonstrate that they have met state targets on other academic
indicators--graduation rates in high school or attendance or other
measures in elementary and middle schools. Alternatively, a district or
school can make adequate yearly progress through the "safe harbor"
provision, if the percentage of students in a group considered not
proficient decreased by at least 10 percent from the preceding year and
the group made progress on one of the state's other academic
indicators.
Actions when adequate yearly progress not achieved;
Schools that receive funding under Title I of NCLBA must take specified
actions if they do not meet state progress goals. Specifically, schools
that do not make adequate yearly progress for 2 consecutive years or
more are identified for improvement and must, among other things, offer
parents an opportunity to transfer students to another school and
provide supplemental services (e.g., tutoring). Those that miss the
annual goals for additional years are identified for successive stages
of intervention, including corrective action and restructuring.
State English language proficiency assessments;
States must annually assess the English language proficiency of all
students with limited English proficiency, measuring students' oral
language, reading, and writing skills in English.
Source: Pub. L. No. 107-110.
[A] Beginning in school year 2007-2008, states must implement similar
assessments in science.
[End of table]
Accurately assessing the academic knowledge of students with limited
English proficiency has become more critical because NCLBA designated
specific groups of students for particular focus. These four groups are
students who (1) are economically disadvantaged, (2) represent major
racial and ethnic groups, (3) have disabilities, and (4) are limited in
English proficiency. These groups are not mutually exclusive, so that
the results for a student who is economically disadvantaged, Hispanic,
and has limited English proficiency could be counted in all three
groups. States and school districts are required to measure the
progress of all students in meeting academic proficiency goals, as well
as to measure separately the progress of these designated groups. To be
deemed as having made adequate yearly progress, generally each district
and school must show that each of these groups met the state
proficiency goal (that is, the percentage of students who have achieved
the proficient level on the state's assessments) and that at least 95
percent of students in each designated group participated in these
assessments.
Although NCLBA placed many new requirements on states, states have
broad discretion in many key areas. States establish their academic
content standards and then develop their own tests to measure the
academic content students are taught in school. States also set their
own standards for what constitutes proficiency on these assessments. In
addition, states set their own annual progress goals for the percentage
of students achieving proficiency, using guidelines outlined in
NCLBA.[Footnote 1]
Title III of NCLBA focuses specifically on students with limited
English proficiency, with the purpose of ensuring that these students
attain English proficiency and meet the same academic content standards
all students are expected to meet. This title established new
requirements intended to hold states and districts accountable for
student progress in attaining English proficiency. It requires states
to establish goals to demonstrate, among other things, annual increases
in (1) students making progress in learning English and (2) students
attaining English proficiency. Specifically, states must establish
English language proficiency standards that are aligned with a state's
academic content standards. The purpose of these alignment requirements
is to ensure that students are acquiring the academic language they
will need to successfully participate in the classroom. Education also
requires that a state's English language proficiency assessment be
aligned to its English language proficiency standards. While NCLBA
requires states to administer academic assessments to students in
specific grades, it requires states to administer an annual English
language proficiency assessment to all students with limited English
proficiency, from kindergarten to grade 12. See table 2 for summary of
key Title III provisions.
Table 2: Selected Provisions from Title III of NCLBA:
State English language proficiency standards;
States must establish English language proficiency standards that are
aligned with the state's challenging academic content standards.
Tracking student progress in learning English;
States must establish objectives for improving students' English
proficiency in four areas: speaking, listening, reading, and
writing.[A] States receiving grants under Title III must establish
annual goals for increasing and measuring the progress of students with
limited English proficiency in (1) learning English, (2) attaining
English proficiency, and (3) meeting adequate yearly progress goals in
attaining academic proficiency outlined in Title I.
Actions when annual goals for students with limited English proficiency
not met;
Districts that receive funding under Title III are subject to certain
consequences if they do not meet a state's annual Title III goals. If a
district does not meet the goals for 2 consecutive years, it must
develop an improvement plan that addresses the factors that prevented
the district from meeting the goals. If a district does not meet the
goals for 4 consecutive years, it must modify its curriculum and method
of instruction or the state must determine whether to continue to fund
the district and require the district to replace all personnel related
to the district's inability to meet the goals.
Source: Pub. L. No. 107-110.
[A] Title I refers to oral language skills, which encompass listening
and speaking.
[End of table]
Language arts standards define the academic skills a student is
expected to master, while English language proficiency standards define
progressive levels of competence in the acquisition of English
necessary to participate successfully in the classroom. Examples of
standards for English language proficiency and language arts are
provided in table 3.
Table 3: Examples of English Language Proficiency and Language Arts
Standards for a Fifth-Grade Student:
English language proficiency standards: The student can comprehend
reading passages written in familiar or short sentence patterns and
verbalize some of the main points of the passage;
Language arts standards: The student can independently read and
comprehend a grade- level appropriate text and write a short essay
describing the main idea of the text.
English language proficiency standards: The student can use acquired
knowledge of the English language to learn and understand new
vocabulary in context;
Language arts standards: The student can apply knowledge of reading
strategies to comprehend the text of the next higher level of
difficulty.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, "Final Non-Regulatory Guidance on
the Title III State Formula Grant Program--Standards, Assessments and
Accountability," February 2003.
[End of table]
Under NCLBA, states, districts, and schools have two sets of
responsibilities for students with limited English proficiency. As
shown in figure 1, they are responsible for ensuring that these
students make progress in learning English under Title III and that
they become proficient in language arts and mathematics under Title I.
Beginning with the 2004-2005 school year, Education is required to
annually review whether states have made adequate yearly progress (as
defined by the state) for each of the student groups and have met their
objectives for increasing the number or percentage of students who
become proficient in English.
Figure 1: NCLBA's Requirements for Students with Limited English
Proficiency under Title I and Title III:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, "Final Non-
Regulatory Guidance on the Title III State Formula Grant Program-
Standards, Assessments and Accountability, February 2003.
[End of figure]
Test Development:
NCLBA's emphasis on validity and reliability reflects the fact that
these concepts are among the most important in test development.
Validity refers to whether the test measures what it is intended to
measure. Reliability refers to whether or not a test yields consistent
results across time and location and among different sections of the
test. A test cannot be considered valid if it is unreliable. The
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing provide universally
accepted guidance for the development and evaluation of high-quality,
psychometrically sound assessments.[Footnote 2] They outline specific
standards to be considered when assessing individuals with limited
English proficiency, including (1) determining when language
differences produce threats to the validity and reliability of test
results, (2) providing information on how to use and interpret results
when tests are used with linguistically diverse individuals, and (3)
collecting the same evidence to support claims of validity for each
linguistic subgroup as was collected for the population as a whole.
Test development begins with determining the purpose of the test and
the content to be measured by the test. NCLBA outlines several purposes
of statewide assessments, including determining the yearly performance
of schools and districts, interpreting individual student academic
needs, and tracking the achievement of several groups of students.
NCLBA requires that the content of statewide assessments reflects state
standards in language arts and mathematics, but the specific skills
measured can vary from state to state. For example, a language arts
assessment could measure a student's knowledge of vocabulary or ability
to write a persuasive essay. Variations in purpose and content affect
test design, as well as the analyses necessary to determine validity
and reliability.
After determining the purpose and content of the test, developers
create test specifications, which delineate the format of the questions
and responses, as well as the scoring procedures. Specifications may
also indicate additional information, such as the intended difficulty
of questions, the student population that will take the test, and the
procedures for administering the test. These specifications
subsequently guide the development of individual test questions. The
quality of the questions is usually ascertained through review by
knowledgeable educators and statistical analyses based on a field test
of a sample of students--ideally the sample is representative of the
overall target student population so the results will reflect how the
questions will function when the test is administered to the
population. These reviews typically evaluate a question's quality,
clarity, lack of ambiguity, and sometimes its sensitivity to gender or
cultural issues; they are intended to ensure that differences in
student performance are related to differences in student knowledge
rather than other factors, such as unnecessarily complex language. Once
the quality has been established, developers assemble questions into a
test that meets the requirements of the test specifications. Developers
often review tests after development to ensure that they continue to
produce accurate results.
Education's Responsibilities:
Education has responsibility for general oversight of Titles I and III
of NCLBA. The department's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
oversees states' implementation of Title I requirements with respect to
academic assessments and making adequate progress toward achieving
academic proficiency for all students by 2014. Education's Office of
English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic
Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students oversees states'
Title III responsibilities, which include administering annual English
language proficiency assessments to students with limited English
proficiency and demonstrating student progress in attaining English
language proficiency.
Students with Limited English Proficiency Performed below Progress
Goals in 2004 in Two-Thirds of States, but States We Studied Are
Working to Improve Student Academic Performance:
In school year 2003-2004, the percentage of students with limited
English proficiency reported by states as scoring proficient on a
state's language arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state's
annual progress goals (established for all students) in nearly two-
thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained data.[Footnote 3]
Further, data from state mathematics tests showed that these students
were generally achieving lower rates of academic proficiency than the
total student population. However, factors other than student academic
performance can influence whether a state meets its progress goals,
such as which students a state includes in the limited English
proficient group and how a state establishes its annual progress goals.
Officials in our study states reported using several common approaches,
including providing teacher training specific to the needs of limited
English proficient students and using data to guide instruction and
identify areas for improvement.
In Almost Two-Thirds of States, the Percentage of Students with Limited
English Proficiency Achieving Proficient Scores Was Below the State's
Annual Progress Goals:
In nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained data, state
data showed that the percentage of students with limited English
proficiency scoring proficient on language arts and mathematics tests
was below the annual progress goal set by the state for school year
2003-2004. Students with limited English proficiency met academic
progress goals in language arts and mathematics in 17 states.[Footnote
4] In 31 states, state data indicated that these students missed the
goals either for language arts or for both language arts and
mathematics (see fig. 2). In 21 states, the percentage of proficient
students in this group was below both the mathematics and the language
arts proficiency goals. See appendix II for information on how adequate
yearly progress measures are calculated.
Figure 2: School Year 2003-2004 Comparison of Percentage of Students
with Limited English Proficiency Who Achieved Proficient Scores in
Language Arts and Mathematics with State-Established Progress Goals:
[See PDF for image]
Source: State 2003-2004 report cards available on state Web sites or
data provided by state officials.
Notes: We obtained data for 42 states from their state Web sites and
contacted state officials in 6 states to obtain these data. Three
states did not report data in a format that allowed us to determine
whether the percentage of students with limited English proficiency met
or exceeded the annual progress goals established by the state.
When states reported proficiency data for different grades or groups of
grades, we determined that students with limited English proficiency
met a state's progress goals if the student group met all proficiency
and participation goals for all grades reported. An Education official
told us that a state could not make adequate yearly progress if it
missed one of the progress goals at any grade level.
All of the states on the map where the proficiency percentage for
students with limited English proficiency met or exceeded the state's
annual progress goal also met NCLBA's participation goals.
We incorporated states' use of confidence intervals and NCLBA's safe
harbor provision in determining whether the percentage of students with
limited English proficiency achieving proficient scores met or exceeded
a state's progress goals. If a state's published data did not
explicitly include such information, we contacted state officials to
ensure that the state did not meet its progress goals through the use
of confidence intervals or through NCLBA's safe harbor provision. In
the following seven states, the percentage of students with limited
English proficiency was below the state's annual progress goal for
language arts or for both language arts and mathematics, but the
student group met the state's requirements for progress through the
safe harbor provision: Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah.
We reported 2004-2005 school year data for Oklahoma, New Mexico and
Utah because we could not obtain data for the 2003-2004 school year.
Data from Iowa, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are for the 2002-2004
school years.
Rhode Island did not separately report participation rates for students
with limited English proficiency. Instead, it reported that all
students met the 95 percent participation goal.
[End of figure]
We also obtained additional data from 18 states to determine whether
districts were meeting annual progress goals for students with limited
English proficiency in school year 2003-2004.[Footnote 5] In 14 of the
18 states, however, we found that less than 40 percent of the districts
in each state reported separate results for this group of students (see
fig. 3)[Footnote 6]. Districts only have to report progress results for
a student group if a minimum number of students are included in the
group[Footnote 7]. In Nebraska, for example, only 4 percent of
districts reported progress goals for students with limited English
proficiency. Except for Florida, Hawaii, and Nevada, less than half of
the districts in each state reported separate results for this group of
students. Even when districts do not have to report on students with
limited English proficiency, however, the test scores for these
students are included in the state's overall progress measures.
Figure 3: Percentage of Districts in 18 Selected States Reporting
Adequate Yearly Progress Results in School Year 2003-2004 for Students
with Limited English Proficiency:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of district report cards and district data
provided by state officials.
Notes: If a district reported annual progress results for students with
limited English proficiency in either language arts proficiency or
mathematics proficiency, or both, we considered that the district
reported adequate yearly progress results for the student group.
Hawaii has only one school district. Since the state reported separate
results for students with limited English proficiency, it has been
included as 100 percent of districts reporting separate results for
these students.
[End of figure]
For those districts that reported results for students with limited
English proficiency, district-level data showed that most districts in
13 of the 18 states met their mathematics progress goals for these
students. For example, 67 percent of reporting districts in Nebraska
and 99 percent of reporting districts in Texas met the state's goals.
In 4 states, less than half of the districts reporting results for
these students met the state mathematics progress goals. Specifically,
26 percent of Alaska districts, 33 percent of Nevada districts, 48
percent of Oregon districts, and 48 percent of Florida districts met
these goals. (See app. III for results from each of the 18 states.)
In addition to looking at whether students with limited English
proficiency met annual progress goals at the state and district level,
we also examined achievement levels on state assessments for this group
of students compared with the total student population (which also
includes students with limited English proficiency). Looking at
mathematics results reported by 49 states to Education, for example, in
all but one state, we found that a lower percentage of students with
limited English proficiency at the elementary school level achieved
proficient scores, compared to the total student population in school
year 2003-2004 (see app. IV for the results reported by the 49 states).
Twenty-seven states reported that the total student population
outperformed students with limited English proficiency by 20 percentage
points or more. The differences among groups in the percentage of
students achieving proficient scores varied across states. South
Dakota, for example, reported a large achievement gap, with 37 percent
of limited English proficient students scoring at the proficient level,
compared to 78 percent for the entire student population. The gap was
less pronounced in Texas, where 75 percent of students with limited
English proficiency achieved proficient scores on the mathematics
assessment, while 85 percent of the total student population did. In
Louisiana, these students performed about the same as the total student
population, with 58 percent of limited English proficient students
scoring at the proficient level on the elementary mathematics
assessment, compared to 57 percent of the total student population.
We also found that, in general, a lower percentage of students with
limited English proficiency achieved proficient test scores than other
selected student groups (see table 4). All of the 49 states reported
that these students achieved lower rates of proficiency than white
students.[Footnote 8] The performance of limited English proficient
students relative to the other student groups varied. In 37 states, for
example, economically disadvantaged students outperformed students with
limited English proficiency, while students with disabilities
outperformed these students in 14 states. In 12 states, all the
selected student groups outperformed students with limited English
proficiency.
Table 4: Percentage of Elementary Students Scoring at the Proficient
Level or Above on State Mathematics Assessment for Selected Student
Groups, School Year 2003-2004:
States: Ala;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 53;
Students with Disabilities: 31;
African-American: 58;
Economically Disadvantaged: 62;
Hispanic: 61;
White: 81.
States: Alaska;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 40;
Students with Disabilities: 36;
African-American: 50;
Economically Disadvantaged: 50;
Hispanic: 63;
White: 77.
States: Ariz.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 32;
Students with Disabilities: 31;
African-American: 46;
Economically Disadvantaged: data not available;
Hispanic: 44;
White: 72.
States: Ark.[B];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 49;
Students with Disabilities: 24;
African-American: 38;
Economically Disadvantaged: 53;
Hispanic: 56;
White: 74.
States: Calif;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 33;
Students with Disabilities: 24;
African-American: 28;
Economically Disadvantaged: 33;
Hispanic: 33;
White: 61.
States: Colo.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 76;
Students with Disabilities: 61;
African-American: 74;
Economically Disadvantaged: 79;
Hispanic: 79;
White: 94.
States: Conn;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 47;
Students with Disabilities: 49;
African-American: 69;
Economically Disadvantaged: 61;
Hispanic: 61;
White: 88.
States: Del.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 70;
Students with Disabilities: 47;
African-American: 61;
Economically Disadvantaged: 67;
Hispanic: 74;
White: 87.
States: D.C;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 34;
Students with Disabilities: 14;
African-American: 49;
Economically Disadvantaged: 48;
Hispanic: 57;
White: 89.
States: Fla;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 48;
Students with Disabilities: 39;
African-American: 44;
Economically Disadvantaged: 52;
Hispanic: 60;
White: 74.
States: Ga;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 53;
Students with Disabilities: 46;
African-American: 65;
Economically Disadvantaged: 66;
Hispanic: 67;
White: 84.
States: Hawaii[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 9;
Students with Disabilities: 6;
African-American: 19;
Economically Disadvantaged: 18;
Hispanic: 16;
White: 36.
States: Idaho;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 62;
Students with Disabilities: 55;
African-American: 69;
Economically Disadvantaged: 76;
Hispanic: 68;
White: 87.
States: Ill.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 53;
Students with Disabilities: 57;
African-American: 54;
Economically Disadvantaged: 61;
Hispanic: 64;
White: 89.
States: Ind.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 47;
Students with Disabilities: 40;
African-American: 54;
Economically Disadvantaged: 60;
Hispanic: 60;
White: 75.
States: Iowa;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 49;
Students with Disabilities: 39;
African-American: 46;
Economically Disadvantaged: 62;
Hispanic: 56;
White: 80.
States: Kans;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 58;
Students with Disabilities: 67;
African-American: 61;
Economically Disadvantaged: 70;
Hispanic: 65;
White: 84.
States: Ky.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 32;
Students with Disabilities: 29;
African-American: 28;
Economically Disadvantaged: 36;
Hispanic: 38;
White: 51.
States: La;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 58;
Students with Disabilities: 30;
African-American: 40;
Economically Disadvantaged: 48;
Hispanic: 62;
White: 74.
States: Maine;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 10;
Students with Disabilities: 13;
African-American: 15;
Economically Disadvantaged: 20;
Hispanic: 20;
White: 33.
States: Md;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 39;
Students with Disabilities: 39;
African-American: 52;
Economically Disadvantaged: 51;
Hispanic: 59;
White: 83.
States: Mass;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 22;
Students with Disabilities: 20;
African-American: 20;
Economically Disadvantaged: 22;
Hispanic: 19;
White: 49.
States: Mich;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 59;
Students with Disabilities: 42;
African-American: 51;
Economically Disadvantaged: 57;
Hispanic: 58;
White: 77.
States: Minn.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 38;
Students with Disabilities: 45;
African-American: 39;
Economically Disadvantaged: 52;
Hispanic: 45;
White: 77.
States: Miss;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 79;
Students with Disabilities: 61;
African-American: 69;
Economically Disadvantaged: 72;
Hispanic: 87;
White: 91.
States: Mo;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 30;
Students with Disabilities: 24;
African-American: 24;
Economically Disadvantaged: 28;
Hispanic: 29;
White: 45.
States: Mont;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 15;
Students with Disabilities: 22;
African-American: 32;
Economically Disadvantaged: 33;
Hispanic: 36;
White: 49.
States: Nebr;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 73;
Students with Disabilities: 65;
African-American: 72;
Economically Disadvantaged: 79;
Hispanic: 80;
White: 90.
States: Nev.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 22;
Students with Disabilities: 22;
African-American: 27;
Economically Disadvantaged: 32;
Hispanic: 32;
White: 57.
States: N.H.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 57;
Students with Disabilities: 61;
African-American: 72;
Economically Disadvantaged: 71;
Hispanic: 67;
White: 85.
States: N.J;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 47;
Students with Disabilities: 46;
African-American: 50;
Economically Disadvantaged: 54;
Hispanic: 59;
White: 81.
States: N.Mex;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 36;
Students with Disabilities: 31;
African-American: 50;
Economically Disadvantaged: 47;
Hispanic: 49;
White: 72.
States: N.C;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 86;
Students with Disabilities: 75;
African-American: 88;
Economically Disadvantaged: 89;
Hispanic: 90;
White: >95.
States: N.Dak;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 30;
Students with Disabilities: 38;
African-American: 45;
Economically Disadvantaged: 52;
Hispanic: 47;
White: 68.
States: Ohio;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 48;
Students with Disabilities: 38;
African-American: 39;
Economically Disadvantaged: 48;
Hispanic: 51;
White: 72.
States: Okla.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 41;
Students with Disabilities: 23;
African-American: 38;
Economically Disadvantaged: 46;
Hispanic: 47;
White: 61.
States: Oreg.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 61;
Students with Disabilities: 57;
African-American: 71;
Economically Disadvantaged: 73;
Hispanic: 63;
White: 86.
States: Pa.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 34;
Students with Disabilities: 27;
African-American: 30;
Economically Disadvantaged: 42;
Hispanic: 38;
White: 70.
States: R.I;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 23;
Students with Disabilities: 34;
African-American: 32;
Economically Disadvantaged: 36;
Hispanic: 31;
White: 60.
States: S.C;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 16;
Students with Disabilities: 16;
African-American: 19;
Economically Disadvantaged: 22;
Hispanic: 24;
White: 49.
States: S.Dak;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 37;
Students with Disabilities: 48;
African-American: 56;
Economically Disadvantaged: 65;
Hispanic: 62;
White: 83.
States: Tex;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 75;
Students with Disabilities: 76;
African-American: 75;
Economically Disadvantaged: 80;
Hispanic: 81;
White: 93.
States: Utah;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 53;
Students with Disabilities: 43;
African-American: 56;
Economically Disadvantaged: 71;
Hispanic: 52;
White: 78.
States: Vt;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 67;
Students with Disabilities: 37;
African-American: 51;
Economically Disadvantaged: 58;
Hispanic: data not available;
White: 73.
States: Va.[A];
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 84;
Students with Disabilities: 74;
African-American: 77;
Economically Disadvantaged: 79;
Hispanic: 84;
White: 92.
States: Wash;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 27;
Students with Disabilities: 29;
African-American: 38;
Economically Disadvantaged: 44;
Hispanic: 39;
White: 66.
States: W.Va;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 68;
Students with Disabilities: 33;
African-American: 53;
Economically Disadvantaged: 64;
Hispanic: 68;
White: 70.
States: Wisc;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 50;
Students with Disabilities: 51;
African-American: 45;
Economically Disadvantaged: 56;
Hispanic: 53;
White: 80.
States: Wyo;
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 15;
Students with Disabilities: 21;
African-American: 25;
Economically Disadvantaged: 29;
Hispanic: 24;
White: 42.
States: Number of states where students with limited English
proficiency had lower proficiency levels than this group (bolded
numbers);
Students with Disabilities: 14;
African-American: 28;
Economically Disadvantaged: 37;
Hispanic: 41;
White: 49.
Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2003-04 school year.
Notes: Bolded numbers indicate when the percentage of students in a
group achieving proficient scores is greater than the percentage of
students with limited English proficiency achieving proficient scores.
Student groups are not mutually exclusive, so that results for a
student who is both Hispanic and economically disadvantaged appear in
both groups.
New York and Tennessee did not provide assessment data in their State
Consolidated Performance Reports for the 2003-2004 school year.
[A] Most states reported assessment data for students in the fourth
grade. States marked with this superscript reported on some other grade
at the elementary school level, usually either third grade or fifth
grade.
[B] The percentages for Arkansas do not include those students with
limited English proficiency or students with disabilities who were
considered proficient based on the state's portfolio assessment.
[End of table]
Factors beyond Student Performance Influence Progress Measures Reported
by States:
Factors beyond student performance can influence the number of states,
districts, and schools meeting progress goals for students with limited
English proficiency. One factor that can affect a state or district's
ability to meet progress goals for this student group is the criteria
states use to determine which students are counted as limited English
proficient. Some states define limited English proficiency so that
students may be more likely to stay in the group for a longer time,
giving them more of an opportunity to develop the language skills
necessary to demonstrate their academic knowledge on state academic
assessments administered in English. On the basis of our review of
state accountability plans, we found that some states removed students
from the group after they have achieved proficiency on the state's
English language proficiency assessment, while other states continued
to include these students until they met additional academic
requirements, such as achieving proficient scores on the state's
language arts assessment. A number of states measured adequate yearly
progress for students with limited English proficiency by including
test scores for students for a set period of time after they were
considered proficient in English, following Education's policy
announcement in February 2004 allowing such an approach.
How rigorously a state defines the proficient level of academic
achievement can also influence the ability of states, districts, and
schools to meet their progress goals. States with less rigorous
definitions of proficiency are more likely to meet their progress goals
for students with limited English proficiency or any other student
group than states with more stringent definitions. Comparing the
performance of students from different states on a nationally
administered assessment suggests that states differ in how rigorously
they define proficiency. For example, eighth-grade students in Colorado
and Missouri achieved somewhat similar scores on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics in 2003.[Footnote 9]
Specifically, 34 percent of Colorado students scored proficient or
above on this national assessment compared to 28 percent of Missouri
students. On their own state assessments in 2003, however, 67 percent
of Colorado students scored proficient or above, compared to just 21
percent in Missouri.[Footnote 10] These results may reflect, among
other things, a difference in the level of rigor in the tests
administered by these states. However, they may also be due in part to
differences in what the national test measures versus what each of the
state tests measure.
The likelihood of a state, district, or school meeting its annual
progress goals also depends, in part, on the proficiency levels of its
students when NCBLA was enacted, as well as how the state sets its
annual goals. States vary significantly in the percentage of students
scoring at the proficient level on their academic assessments, so that
states with lower proficiency levels must, on average, establish larger
annual increases in proficiency levels to meet the 2014 goal. Some
states planned for large increases every 2 to 3 years, while others set
smaller annual increases. States that established smaller annual
increases in their initial proficiency goals may be more likely to meet
their progress goals at this time, compared with states that set larger
annual increases.
The use of statistical procedures, such as confidence intervals, can
also affect whether a state, district, or school meets its progress
goals. Education officials said that states use such procedures to
improve the reliability of determinations about the performance of
districts. According to some researchers, such methods may improve the
validity of results because they help to account for the effect of
small group sizes and year-to-year changes in student
populations.[Footnote 11] Most states currently use some type of
confidence interval to determine if a state or district has met its
progress goals, according to the Center on Education Policy.[Footnote
12] A confidence interval establishes a range of proficiency levels
around a state's annual progress goal.[Footnote 13] If the percentage
of students with limited English proficiency scoring proficient on a
state's academic assessments falls within that range, that group has
made the annual progress goal.
States and Districts We Visited Have Taken Steps to Improve Performance
of Students with Limited English Proficiency:
To help students with limited English proficiency progress
academically, state and district officials in our 5 study states
reported using somewhat similar strategies, many of which are also
considered good practices for all students. Among the key factors cited
by state and district officials for their success in working with this
group were:
* strong professional development focused on effective teaching
strategies for students with limited English proficiency;
* school or district leadership that focuses on the needs of these
students, such as providing sufficient resources to meet those needs
and establishing high academic standards for these students;
* "data driven" decisions, such as using data strategically to identify
students who are doing well and those who need more help, to identify
effective instructional approaches, or to provide effective
professional development; and:
* efforts to work with parents to support the academic progress of
their children.
These approaches are similar to those used by "blue ribbon" schools--
schools identified by Education as working successfully with all
students to achieve strong academic outcomes. The qualities shared by
these blue ribbon schools include professional development related to
classroom instruction, strong school leadership and a vision that
emphasizes high academic expectations and academic success for all
students, using data to target instructional approaches, and parental
involvement. While many blue ribbon schools have a high percentage of
disadvantaged students, including those with limited English
proficiency, their common approaches help them achieve student outcomes
that place them among the top 10 percent of all schools in the state or
that demonstrate dramatic improvement.
Officials in all 5 of our study states stressed the importance of
providing teachers with the training they need to work effectively with
students with limited English proficiency. For example, state officials
in North Carolina told us that they are developing a statewide
professional development program to train mainstream teachers to
present academic content material so that it is more understandable to
students with limited English proficiency and to incorporate language
development while teaching subjects such as mathematics and science. In
one rural North Carolina school district where students with limited
English proficiency have only recently become a large presence,
district officials commented that this kind of professional development
has helped teachers become more comfortable with these students and
given them useful strategies to work more effectively with them.
In 4 of our study states, officials emphasized the need for strong
school or district leadership that focuses on the needs of students
with limited English proficiency. For example, officials in a
California school district with a high percentage of students with
limited English proficiency told us that these students are a district
priority and that significant resources are devoted to programs for
them. The district administration has instilled the attitude that
students with limited English proficiency can meet high expectations
and are the responsibility of all teachers. To help maintain the focus
on these students, the district has created an English language
development progress profile to help teachers track the progress of
each student in acquiring English and meeting the state's English
language development standards.
In addition, officials in 4 of our study states attributed their
success in working with students with limited English proficiency to
using data strategically, for example, to identify effective practices
and guide instruction. At one California school we visited, officials
reviewed test scores to identify areas needing improvement for
different classes and different student groups and to identify
effective practices. In addition, they reviewed test data for each
student to identify areas of weakness. If test data showed that a
student was having trouble with vocabulary, the teacher would work in
class to build the student's vocabulary. Similarly, officials in a New
York school reported that they followed student test scores over 3
years to set goals for different student groups and identify areas in
need of improvement.
Officials in 3 states we visited also cited the importance of involving
parents of students with limited English proficiency in their
children's education. In Nebraska, for example, a technical assistance
agency implemented a family literacy program to help parents and their
children improve their English, and also to involve parents in their
children's education. The program showed parents how they can help
children with their homework and the importance of reading to their
children in their native language to develop their basic language
skills. At a New York middle school, officials told us that they use a
parent coordinator to establish better communication with families,
learn about issues at home that can affect the student's academic
performance, and help families obtain support services, if needed.
Selected States Considered Language Issues When Developing Academic
Assessments, but Validity and Reliability Concerns Remain:
For academic assessments in language arts and mathematics, officials in
the 5 states we studied reported that they have taken some steps, such
as reviewing test items to eliminate unnecessarily complex language, to
address the specific challenges associated with assessing students with
limited English proficiency. However, Education recently reviewed the
assessment documentation of 38 states and noted some concerns related
to using these assessments for students with limited English
proficiency. Our group of experts also indicated that states are
generally not taking the appropriate set of comprehensive steps to
create assessments that produce valid and reliable results for students
with limited English proficiency. To increase the validity and
reliability of assessment results for this population, most states
offered accommodations, such as providing extra time to complete the
assessment and offering native language assessments. However, offering
accommodations may or may not improve the validity of test results, as
research on the appropriate use of accommodations for these students is
lacking. In addition, native language assessments are not appropriate
for all students with limited English proficiency and are difficult and
expensive to develop.
States Reported Efforts to Improve Validity of Assessment Results for
Students with Limited English Proficiency:
Officials in the 5 states we studied reported taking some steps to
address the specific challenges associated with assessing students with
limited English proficiency in language arts and mathematics. Officials
in 4 of these states reported following generally accepted test
development procedures when developing their academic assessments,
while a Nebraska official reported that the state expects districts to
follow such procedures when developing their tests. Test development
involves a structured process with specific steps; however, additional
steps and special attention to language issues are required when
developing a test that includes students with limited English
proficiency to ensure that the results are valid and reliable for these
students. As the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
notes, for example, the test instructions or the response format may
need to be modified to ensure that the test provides valid information
about the skills of students with limited English proficiency.
Officials in 2 states and at several testing companies mentioned that
they have been focusing more on the needs of these students in recent
years. Officials in California, New York, North Carolina, and Texas
told us that they try to implement the principles of universal design,
which support making assessments accessible to the widest possible
range of students. This is done by ensuring, among other things, that
instructions, forms, and questions are clear and not more
linguistically complex than necessary. In addition, officials in all 5
states we studied told us they included students with limited English
proficiency in the field testing of assessments. North Carolina
officials reported that they oversample for students with limited
English proficiency to ensure that these students are adequately
represented in the field tests.
Another step officials in some states reported taking is assembling
panels or committees to review test items for bias and testing data for
bias related to a student's English proficient status. For example,
Texas and North Carolina officials reported creating review committees
to ensure that test items are accessible to students with limited
English proficiency. Specifically, when developing mathematics items,
these states try to make the language as clear as possible to ensure
that the item is measuring primarily mathematical concepts and to
minimize the extent to which it is measuring language proficiency. A
mathematics word problem involving subtraction, for example, might
refer to fish rather than barracuda. Officials in 4 of our study states
told us they used a statistical approach to evaluate test items for
bias against specific student groups, and three of these reported using
it to detect bias related to students with limited English proficiency.
However, this type of analysis can only be used when a relatively large
number of students in the specific group is taking the test. Members of
our expert group recommended the use of this technique for states with
a large enough number of students with limited English proficiency;
however, one member noted that this technique may not be appropriate if
a state's population of students with limited English proficiency is
diverse but is treated as homogenous in the analyses.
Some of our study states also reported including experts on limited
English proficiency or English as a second language (ESL) issues in the
development and review of test items, although only 1 reported
involving them in all aspects of test development. In North Carolina,
for example, officials told us that ESL teachers and supervisors are
involved in reviewing all aspects of the test development process,
including item writing, field testing, and operational testing. Some
state officials also told us that they included education staff
involved with students with limited English proficiency in the
development of assessments.
Both Education's Peer Reviews and Our Group of Experts Raised Concerns
Regarding State Efforts to Ensure Valid and Reliable Results:
Education's recent NCLBA peer reviews of 38 states[Footnote 14] found
that 25 did not provide sufficient evidence on the validity or
reliability of results for students with limited English proficiency,
although states have been required to include these students in their
assessments since 1994.[Footnote 15] For example, peer reviewers found
that Alabama's documentation did not include sufficient evidence on the
selection process for committee members to review test items for bias,
noting that no evidence was provided on whether representatives for
students with limited English proficiency were included. In Idaho, peer
reviewers commented that the state did not report reliability data for
student groups, including students with limited English proficiency.
See table 5 for further examples.
Table 5: Examples of Issues Relating to Assessing Students with Limited
English Proficiency Raised in Education's Peer Review Reports:
Validity: The state's item development and review procedures are
inadequate to ensure that the assessments do not reflect unfair
irrelevant constructs. For example, there is no empirical evidence that
the item review process is successful in removing barriers due to
overly complex language. Further, a statistical process to determine
bias is evaluated only for gender and race/ethnicity; the state should
consider using it to evaluate geographic and demographic diversity,
such as students with limited English proficiency;
Reliability: The state did not provide any reliability data for each
reported subpopulation;
Accommodations: The state provides a reasonable list of accommodations,
but does not distinguish among those that are allowable for students
with disabilities, and those which are allowable for students with
limited English proficiency. The state may wish to provide separate
lists of accommodations to support the selection of appropriate
accommodations that are aligned with instructional approaches for
individual students. Further, although it appears that the state has a
system in place for monitoring the selection of accommodations for
students with disabilities, it does not for students with limited
English proficiency.
Validity: The state should conduct a bias review, especially for the
common items and the alternate assessments for students with limited
English proficiency and students with disabilities;
Reliability: The state does not routinely report subgroup reliability
data;
Accommodations: The state did not provide evidence to support the
assertion that accommodations for students with limited English
proficiency allow for valid inferences about these students' knowledge
and skills. It does not appear that the state monitors availability of
accommodations during test administration. The use of accommodations
should be validated on the state's own student population.
Source: GAO review of Education's peer review notes for 38 states.
Note: This table includes examples from the categories used in
Education's peer review process that determine if a state's assessments
are valid, reliable, fair and accessible, and use appropriate
accommodations.
[End of table]
Our group of experts indicated that states are generally not taking the
appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create assessments that
produce valid and reliable results for students with limited English
proficiency and identified essential steps that should be taken. The
group noted that no state has implemented an assessment program for
students with limited English proficiency that is consistent with the
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and other technical
standards. Specifically, the group said that students with limited
English proficiency are not defined consistently within and across
states, which is a crucial first step to ensuring the reliability of
test results. A reliable test should produce consistent results, so
that students achieve similar scores if tested repeatedly. If the
language proficiency levels of students with limited English
proficiency are classified inconsistently, an assessment may produce
results that appear inconsistent because of the variable
classifications rather than actual differences in skill levels. One
expert noted, for example, that some studies have shown that a
student's language proficiency plays a small role in determining
whether a student is classified as limited English proficient.
Inconsistency in defining these students may be due to variation in how
school districts apply state definitions. For example, according to a
2005 study on students with limited English proficiency in California,
state board of education guidelines suggest that districts consider a
student's performance on the state's English language proficiency
assessment and on the state's language arts test, a teacher evaluation
of the student's academic performance, and parental recommendations
when determining if a student should or should not continue to be
considered limited English proficient. However, the study noted that
districts interpreted and applied these factors differently.[Footnote
16] Further, it appears that many state assessment programs do not
conduct separate analyses for different groups of limited English
proficient students. Our group of experts indicated that the
reliability of a test may be different for heterogeneous groups of
students with limited English proficiency, such as students who are
literate in their native language and those who are not.
Our group of experts also noted that states are not always explicit
about whether an assessment is attempting to measure skills only (such
as mathematics) or mathematics skills as expressed in English.
According to the group, a fundamental issue affecting the validity of a
test is the definition of what is being measured. Members of the group
emphasized that approaches to ensure valid test results should vary
based on which of these is being measured. For example, North Carolina
officials stated that the state did not offer native language
assessments because the state has explicitly chosen to measure student
knowledge in English.
The expert group emphasized that determining the validity and
reliability of academic assessments for students with limited English
proficiency is complicated and requires a comprehensive collection of
evidence rather than a single analysis or review. As one expert noted,
"you can't just do one thing and assume things are valid." In addition,
the appropriate combination of analyses will vary from state to state,
depending on the characteristics of the student population and the type
of assessment. For example, because reliability of test results can
vary based on a student's English proficiency status or a student's
native language, states with more diverse groups of limited English
proficient students may need to conduct additional analyses to ensure
sufficient reliability. The group indicated that states are not
universally using all the appropriate analyses to evaluate the validity
and reliability of test results for students with limited English
proficiency. Instead, our experts noted that states vary in terms of
the particular techniques they use for this purpose, and in the extent
to which they collect valid background data. Members indicated that
some states may need assistance to conduct appropriate analyses that
will offer useful information about the validity of their academic
assessments for these students.
Finally, our group of experts indicated that reducing language
complexity is essential to developing valid assessments for these
students, but expressed concern that some states and test developers do
not have a strong understanding of universal design principles or how
to use them to develop assessments from the beginning to eliminate
language that is not relevant to measuring a student's knowledge of,
for example, mathematics. Members believed that some states may need
more information on how to implement these principles to develop
assessments that produce valid results for students with limited
English proficiency.
Accommodations Can Increase Validity of Assessment Results, but
Research on Appropriate Use Is Limited:
The majority of states offered some accommodations to try to increase
the validity and reliability of assessment results for students with
limited English proficiency. These accommodations are intended to
permit students with limited English proficiency to demonstrate their
academic knowledge, despite their limited language ability. Our review
of state Web sites found available documentation on accommodations for
42 states. The number of accommodations offered varied considerably
among states. One state, for example, offered students with limited
English proficiency the use of a bilingual dictionary and a side-by-
side English-Spanish version of its grade 10 mathematics test. Another
state listed over 40 acceptable accommodations, including clarifying
test directions in English or the student's native language, offering
extra time, and providing responses (written or oral) in the student's
native language.
Our review found that the most common accommodations offered by these
states were allowing the use of a bilingual dictionary and reading test
items aloud in English (see table 6). In addition, they offered other
accommodations intended to create a less distracting environment for
students, such as administering the assessment to the student in a
small group or individually. Some states also gave students with
limited English proficiency extra time to complete a test to account
for their slower reading speed and information processing time in
English. The 5 states we studied varied in how they established and
offered accommodations to students. For example, Texas officials
reported working with its limited English proficiency focus group to
develop a list of allowable accommodations, which may be offered on a
test when they are routinely used by students in their classrooms. In
addition, each school district has a committee to select particular
accommodations based on the needs of individual students. California
officials told us the state provides guidance to districts on the
appropriate use of accommodations. However, they said that districts
might not provide approved accommodations because of high administrator
turnover.
Table 6: Most Frequently Cited Accommodations in 42 States:
Accommodation: Bilingual dictionary;
Number of states: 32.
Accommodation: Reading items aloud in English;
Number of states: 32.
Accommodation: Small group administration;
Number of states: 29.
Accommodation: Extra time;
Number of states: 27.
Accommodation: Individual administration;
Number of states: 27.
Accommodation: Separate location;
Number of states: 25.
Accommodation: Extra breaks;
Number of states: 25.
Accommodation: Directions in student's native language;
Number of states: 24.
Source: GAO review of state documentation.
[End of table]
According to our expert group and our review of the relevant
literature, research is lacking on what specific accommodations are
appropriate for students with limited English proficiency, as well as
their effectiveness in improving the validity of assessment results. A
2004 review of state policies found that few studies focus on
accommodations intended to address the linguistic needs of students
with limited English proficiency or on how accommodations affect the
performance of students with limited English proficiency.[Footnote 17]
In contrast, significantly more research has been conducted on
accommodations for students with disabilities, much of it funded by
Education. Because of this research disparity, our group of experts
reported that some states offer accommodations to students with limited
English proficiency based on those they offer to students with
disabilities, without determining their appropriateness for individual
students. Our experts noted the importance of considering individual
student characteristics to ensure that an accommodation appropriately
addresses the needs of the student. Other researchers have raised
similar issues about the use of accommodations by states.
Education's peer reviews of state academic assessments identified
issues related to accommodations for students with limited English
proficiency in all 38 states reviewed. For example, the reviewers noted
that South Dakota does not clearly indicate whether students with
limited English proficiency were provided accommodations that they do
not regularly use in the classroom. If an accommodation is not used
regularly in the classroom, it may not improve the validity of test
results because the student may not be comfortable with a new
procedure. In addition, they noted that South Dakota does not appear to
be monitoring the use of accommodations and suggested that the state
study accommodations to ensure that they are instructionally
appropriate and that they improve the validity and reliability of the
results. In Texas, the reviewers noted that the state needs to provide
information regarding the quality and consistency of accommodations for
students with limited English proficiency--specifically whether the
state routinely monitors the use of accommodations for these students.
In North Carolina, they noted a lack of evidence that the state has
performed research on accommodations. Although conducting such research
could provide useful information on the validity of accommodated tests,
having each state individually study accommodations could be
financially burdensome for them. While research on accommodations for
this population would be useful, it does not have to be conducted
directly by states to be applicable to a state's student population.
Further, such research could involve short-term studies, rather than
large-scale, longitudinal efforts.
Native Language and Alternate Assessments May Improve the Validity of
Results but Are Challenging to Implement:
In our survey, 16 states reported that they offered statewide native
language assessments in language arts or mathematics in some grades for
certain students with limited English proficiency in the 2004-2005
school year. For example, New York translated its statewide mathematics
assessments into Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Korean, and Haitian-Creole.
In addition, 3 states were developing or planning to develop a native
language assessment, and several states allowed school districts to
translate state assessments or offer their own native language
assessments. Our group of experts told us that this type of assessment
is difficult and costly to develop. An assessment provided in a
student's native language is intended to remove language barriers
students face in demonstrating their content knowledge and thereby
improve the validity of test results. Of the 16 states that offered
statewide native language assessments, 4 were able to provide complete
data on the number of students taking native language assessments.
These data indicated that relatively few students took these
assessments.
Our group of experts and some state officials also described the
challenges of developing native language assessments that produce valid
results. Members of our expert group and other experts told us that
native language assessments are generally an effective accommodation
only for students in specific circumstances, such as students who are
instructed in their native language or are literate in their native
language. In addition, our experts emphasized that developing valid
native language assessments is challenging, time-consuming, and
expensive. Development of a valid native language assessment involves
more than a simple translation of the original test; in most
situations, a process of test development and validation similar to
that of the nontranslated test is recommended to ensure the validity of
the test. In addition, the administration of native language
assessments may not be practicable, for example, when only a small
percentage of limited English students in the state speak a particular
language or when a state's student population has many languages.
Thirteen states offered statewide alternate assessments (such as
reviewing a student's classroom work portfolio) in 2005 for certain
students with limited English proficiency, based on our review of
accountability plans for all states and the District of Columbia as of
March 2006. We also found that 4 additional states allowed school
districts to offer alternate assessments, while 7 states and the
District of Columbia planned to offer alternate assessments. An
official in Wisconsin told us that the state administers an alternate
assessment because developing a native language assessment for its
relatively small Spanish-speaking population would be impractical and
the state does not have bilingual programs in the second most common
language, Hmong (a language that is native to Southeast Asia). However,
our group of experts noted that alternate assessments are difficult and
expensive to develop, and may not be feasible because of the amount of
time required for such an assessment. Members of the group also
expressed concern about the extent to which these assessments are
objective and comparable and can be aggregated with regular
assessments. See figure 4 for information on which states offered
native language or alternate assessments for students with limited
English proficiency.
Figure 4: Use of Native Language and Alternate Assessments for Students
with Limited English Proficiency:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey and state accountability workbooks.
[End of figure]
Most States Implemented New English Language Proficiency Assessments
but Faced Challenges Establishing Their Validity and Reliability:
With respect to English language proficiency assessments, many states
implemented new tests to address NCLBA requirements, and are working to
align them with newly required state English language proficiency
standards. State and consortia officials reported that states are using
assessments or test items developed by state consortia, customized
assessments developed by testing companies, state-developed
assessments, and off-the-shelf assessments. While a few states already
had the required English language proficiency assessments in place,
many states are implementing them for the first time in spring 2006; as
a result, evidence on their validity and reliability may not be fully
developed.
States Are Working with Consortia and Test Developers and Individually
to Develop New English Language Proficiency Assessments:
Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments
for the 2005-2006 school year to meet Education's requirement for
states to administer English language proficiency tests that meet NCLBA
requirements by the spring of 2006.[Footnote 18] These assessments must
allow states to track student progress in learning English; in
addition, Education requires that these assessments be aligned to a
state's English language proficiency standards. According to Education
and test development officials, prior to NCLBA, most states used off-
the-shelf English language proficiency assessments to determine the
placement of students in language instruction programs, but these
assessments did not have to be aligned with standards. Education
officials said that because many states did not have tests that met
NCLBA requirements, the agency funded four state consortia to develop
new assessments that were to be aligned with state standards and
measure student progress. Officials in some states told us they have
chosen to use these consortium-developed tests, while officials in
other states reported developing their own tests or continuing to use
off-the-shelf tests. Some states had only recently determined what test
they are going to administer this year, while others may administer a
new test in the 2006-2007 school year. Education officials noted that
states' decisions on these tests have been in flux during this
transition year.
In the 2005-2006 school year, 22 states used assessments or test items
developed by one of four state consortia, making this the most common
approach taken by states to develop new English language proficiency
assessments. Each of the four consortia varied somewhat in its
development approach.[Footnote 19] For example, officials in two
consortia reported that they examined all their member states' English
language proficiency standards and reached consensus on core standards
for use on the English language proficiency assessments. They also
planned to continue working with member states in implementing their
assessments. For example, one consortium plans to provide ongoing
professional development to help educators understand the consortium's
standards. In contrast, officials in the other two consortia reported
that the consortia disbanded after developing their assessments. One
state official told us that the state hired a contractor to customize
the consortium-developed assessment to more closely align with state
standards. In addition, officials in other states, such as New Mexico,
told us they are using a combination of consortium-developed test
items, along with items developed by another test developer.
Fifteen states participated in one of the consortia, but officials in
these states told us they chose not to use the assessments developed by
the consortia in the 2005-2006 school year for a variety of reasons,
including lack of alignment with state standards, the length of the
assessment, and the cost of implementation. For example, Kentucky chose
not to use the consortium assessment because of cost effectiveness
concerns and lack of alignment with state standards. Another state
decided not to use the consortium-developed assessment, as officials
were concerned about its cumbersome nature and associated cost.
Officials in some states told us they plan to use consortium-developed
assessments in the future. For example, Florida officials reported that
the state will use a consortium assessment in the 2006-2007 school
year. Appendix V shows the states that participated in the consortia
and which used consortia-developed assessments in the 2005-2006 school
year.
Officials in states that did not use consortia assessments told us that
they used other approaches to develop their English language
proficiency assessments. Eight states worked with test developers to
augment off-the-shelf English language proficiency assessments to
incorporate state standards. For example, Mississippi, South Dakota,
and Wyoming are using versions of an English language proficiency
assessment that has been augmented to align to their respective state
standards. Officials in 14 states indicated that they are administering
off-the-shelf assessments. These officials indicated varying degrees of
alignment between the off-the-shelf tests being used and their state's
English language proficiency standards; in 11 of these states, the
assessment has not been fully aligned with state standards.[Footnote
20] Seven states, including Texas, Minnesota, and Kansas, created their
own English language proficiency assessments. Officials in these states
said they typically worked with a test developer or research
organization to create the assessments. See figure 5 and appendix VI
for more detailed information on the English language proficiency
assessments used by each state.
Figure 5: Type of English Language Proficiency Assessment Administered
in 2005-2006 School Year:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Interviews with consortia and state officials.
[End of figure]
Some officials in our 5 study states and 28 additional states we
contacted to determine what English language proficiency assessment
they planned to use in 2006 pointed to some challenges involving their
English language proficiency assessments. Some of these state officials
expressed concerns about using both their old and new English language
proficiency assessments to measure student progress in learning
English. NCLBA required states to begin tracking student progress in
the 2002-2003 school year, before most states had implemented their new
English language proficiency assessments. In May 2006, Education
officials told us that states must rely on baseline results from their
old tests and determine how results from their old tests relate to
results from their new tests in order to track student progress since
2003, as required by NCLBA. They noted that states may change their
English language proficiency goals based on results from their new
assessments, but they cannot change the initial baseline established
with their old test. In its technical comments on this report,
Education noted that it allows states to make such determinations in a
variety of ways, as long as annual progress is reported. Officials in
some states want to rely solely on data from their new tests to track
student progress. They stated that, unlike their old tests, their new
tests provide more accurate data on student progress because they are
aligned to their English language proficiency standards and were
designed to measure student progress. Officials from other states
questioned the usefulness of conducting studies to determine the
relationship between their old and new tests, especially in states that
had previously used multiple English language proficiency assessments.
Officials in a few of our study states also expressed concern about the
appropriateness of NCLBA's requirement to assess students with limited
English proficiency in kindergarten and the first and second grades.
For example, Texas officials told us traditional tests do not produce
good test results for students this young in part because of their
limited attention spans. In addition, officials in Texas and North
Carolina noted that English proficient students in these grades are not
required to be assessed in the same way.
Many States Are Still in the Process of Establishing the Validity and
Reliability of English Language Proficiency Assessments:
Officials in our study states and test developers we interviewed
reported that they commonly apply generally accepted test development
procedures in the development of English language proficiency
assessments, but some are still in the process of documenting the
validity and reliability of these assessments. For example, some
evidence needed to confirm the validity and reliability of the test can
be obtained only after the assessment has been fully administered. One
consortium contracted with a research organization to assess the
validity and reliability testing of its English language proficiency
assessment. According to a consortium official, the research
organization performed all of the standard steps that are taken to
ensure high-quality assessments. These included piloting and field
testing the assessment and conducting statistical modeling. An official
from another consortium said that its test vendor is conducting basic
psychometric research and analyzing field test data for evidence of
reliability. California officials noted that the process for developing
and ensuring the validity and reliability of its English language
proficiency assessment is similar to that used for its state academic
assessments.
Although states have taken steps toward determining validity,
documenting the validity and reliability of a new assessment is an
ongoing process. A 2005 review of the documentation of 17 English
language proficiency assessments used by 33 states in the 2005-2006
school year found that the evidence presented on validity and
reliability was generally insufficient.[Footnote 21] The report, which
was funded by Education, reviewed documentation for consortium-
developed assessments, off-the-shelf assessments, and custom-developed
assessments for evidence of validity, reliability, and freedom from
test bias, among other things. It found that the technical adequacy of
English language proficiency assessments is undeveloped compared to the
adequacy of assessments for general education. The study noted that
none of the assessments contained "sufficient technical evidence to
support the high-stakes accountability information and conclusions of
student readiness they are meant to provide."
In addition, many states are in the process of aligning these
assessments to state English language proficiency standards, which in
turn must be aligned to state content standards. These steps are needed
to comply with NCLBA requirements. Alignment, which refers to the
degree to which an assessment's items measure the content they are
intended to measure, is critical in assuring the validity of an
assessment. Officials in some states[Footnote 22] have expressed
uncertainty about how to align their English language proficiency test
with their standards for academic subjects, such as mathematics and
science.[Footnote 23] Officials in 2 states told us that their English
language proficiency assessments are aligned to state language arts
standards but are not aligned to state mathematics standards, meaning
that the assessment may not measure the language needed to succeed in a
mathematics class. Findings from Education's Title III monitoring
reviews of 13 states indicated that 8 states had not yet fully
completed alignment; of these, 5 had not yet linked their English
language proficiency and academic content standards, while 5 had not
yet aligned their English language proficiency assessments with their
English language proficiency standards[Footnote 24].
Education Has Provided Assistance, but States Reported Need for
Additional Guidance and Flexibility:
Education has offered states a variety of technical assistance to help
them appropriately assess students with limited English proficiency,
such as providing training and expert reviews of their assessment
systems, as well as flexibility in assessing these students. However,
Education has issued little written guidance on how states are expected
to assess and track the English proficiency of these students, leaving
state officials unclear about Education's expectations. To support
states' efforts to incorporate these students into their accountability
systems, Education has offered states some flexibilities in how they
track progress goals for these students. However, many of the state and
district officials we interviewed told us that the current
flexibilities do not fully account for some characteristics of certain
students in this student group, such as their lack of previous
schooling. These officials indicated that additional flexibility is
needed to ensure that the federal progress measures accurately track
the academic progress of these students.
Education Has Provided a Variety of Support on Assessment Issues but
Little Written Guidance on Assessing Students with Limited English
Proficiency:
Education offers support in a variety of ways to help states meet
NCLBA's requirements for assessing students with limited English
proficiency for both their language proficiency and their academic
knowledge. Some of these efforts focus specifically on students with
limited English proficiency, while others, such as the Title I
monitoring visits, focus on all student groups and on broader
compliance issues but review some assessment issues related to students
with limited English proficiency as part of their broader purposes. The
agency's primary technical assistance efforts have included the
following:
* Title I peer reviews of states' academic standards and assessment
systems: Education is currently conducting peer reviews of the academic
assessments that states use in measuring adequate yearly progress.
During these reviews, three independent experts review evidence
provided by the state about the validity and reliability of these
assessments (including whether the results are valid and reliable for
students with limited English proficiency) and make recommendations to
Education about whether the state's assessment system is technically
sufficient and meets all legal requirements. Education shares
information from the peer review to help states address issues
identified during the review. Education has imposed a deadline
requiring that states receive peer review approval by June 30, 2006,
but only 10 states have had their assessment systems fully approved by
Education as of that date.[Footnote 25]
* Title III monitoring visits: Education began conducting site visits
to review state compliance with Title III requirements in 2005 and has
visited 15 states. Education officials reported that they plan to visit
11 more states in 2006. As part of these visits, the agency reviews the
state's progress in developing English language proficiency assessments
that meet NCLBA requirements.
* Comprehensive centers: Education has contracted with 16 regional
comprehensive centers to build state capacity to help districts that
are not meeting their adequate yearly progress goals. The grants for
these centers were awarded in September 2005, and the centers provide a
broad range of assistance, focusing on the specific needs of individual
states. At least 3 of these centers plan to assist individual states in
developing appropriate goals for student progress in learning English.
In 2005, Education also funded an assessment and accountability
comprehensive center, which provides technical assistance to the
regional comprehensive centers on issues related to the assessment of
students, including those with limited English proficiency.
* Ongoing technical assistance for English language proficiency
assessments: Education has provided information and ongoing technical
assistance to states using a variety of tools and has focused
specifically on the development of the English language proficiency
standards and assessments required by NCLBA. These include:
* a semiannual review of reports states submit to Education and phone
calls to state officials focused on state progress in developing their
English language proficiency assessments;
* on-site technical assistance to states regarding their English
language proficiency assessments;
* an annual conference focused on students with limited English
proficiency that includes sessions on assessment issues, such as
aligning English language proficiency and academic content standards;
* videoconference training sessions for state officials on developing
English language proficiency assessments;
* providing guidance on issues related to students with limited English
proficiency on its Web site;
* distributing information through an electronic bulletin board and a
weekly electronic newsletter focused on students with limited English
proficiency;
* disseminating information through the National Clearinghouse for
English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational
Programs;
* semiannual meetings and training sessions with state Title III
directors; and:
* responding to questions from individual states as needed.
* Enhanced Assessment Grants: Since 2003, Education has awarded these
grants, authorized by NCLBA, to support state activities designed to
improve the validity and reliability of state assessments. According to
an Education official, most of the grants up to now have funded the
English language proficiency consortia, although some grants have been
used to conduct research on accommodations. For grants to be awarded in
2006, Education will give preference to projects involving
accommodations and alternate assessments intended to increase the
validity of assessments for students with limited English proficiency
and students with disabilities.
* Title I monitoring visits: As part of its monitoring visits to review
state compliance with Title I requirements, Education reviews some
aspects of the academic assessments administered by states, but in less
detail than during its peer reviews. During these visits, for example,
states may receive some feedback on how the state administers academic
assessments to students with limited English proficiency and the
appropriateness of accommodations offered to these students. Education
staff also reported that they respond to questions about Title I
requirements from individual states as needed.
While providing states with a broad range of technical assistance and
guidance through informal channels, Education has issued little written
guidance on developing English language proficiency assessments that
meet NCLBA's requirements and on tracking the progress of students in
acquiring English. Education issued some limited nonregulatory guidance
on NCLBA's basic requirements for English language proficiency
standards and assessments in February 2003. However, officials in about
one-third of the 33 states we visited or directly contacted expressed
uncertainty about implementing these requirements. They told us that
they would like more specific guidance from Education to help them
develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements, generally focusing on two
issues. First, some officials said they were unsure about how to align
English language proficiency standards with content standards for
language arts, mathematics, and science, as required by NCLBA. An
official in 1 state said the state needed specific guidance on what
Education wants from these assessments, such as how to integrate
content vocabulary on the English language proficiency assessment
without creating an excessively long test. In another state, officials
explained that the state was developing its English language
proficiency test by using an off-the-shelf test and incorporating
additional items to align the test with the state's English language
proficiency and academic standards. However, the state discovered that
it had not correctly augmented the test and will consequently have to
revise the test. Officials in this state noted that they have had to
develop this test without a lot of guidance from Education.
Second, some officials reported that they did not know how to use the
different scores from their old and new English language proficiency
assessments to track student progress. For example, an official in 1
state said that she would like guidance from Education on how to
measure student progress in English language proficiency using
different tests over time. Another official was unsure if Education
required a formal study to correlate the results from their old and new
English language proficiency assessments, noting that more specific
guidance would help them better understand Education's requirements.
Without guidance and specific examples on both of these issues, some of
these officials were concerned that they will spend time and resources
developing an assessment that may not meet Education's requirements.
Education officials told us that they are currently developing
additional nonregulatory guidance on these issues, but it has not been
finalized. They also pointed out that they have provided extensive
technical assistance on developing English language proficiency
standards and assessments, and have clearly explained the requirements
to state officials at different meetings on multiple occasions. An
Education official acknowledged that states were looking for more
guidance on the degree of alignment required between their English
language proficiency assessments and standards, noting that Education
is still considering the issue. She stated that the issue would be
addressed in the guidance it plans to issue in the future.
With respect to academic content assessments, our group of experts
reported that some states could use more assistance in creating valid
academic assessments for students with limited English proficiency.
While 4 of the 5 states we studied in depth had significant experience
in, and multiple staff devoted to, developing language arts and
mathematics assessments, some members of our expert group pointed out
that the assessment departments in other states have limited resources
and expertise, as well as high turnover. As a result, these states need
help to conduct appropriate analyses that will offer useful information
about the validity and reliability of their academic assessments for
students with limited English proficiency. An Education official told
us that the agency recently began offering technical assistance to
states that need help addressing issues raised during their peer
reviews.
Our group of experts suggested several areas where states could benefit
from additional assistance and guidance in developing academic
assessments for students with limited English proficiency. Several
members noted the lack of good research on what kinds of accommodations
can help mitigate language barriers for students with limited English
proficiency. Several experts also believed that some states need more
information on how to implement universal design principles to develop
assessments that produce valid results for students with limited
English proficiency. In addition, some group members pointed out that
developing equivalent assessments in other languages (that is,
assessments that measure the same thing and are of equivalent
difficulty) is challenging and that states need more information about
how to develop such assessments, as well as examples.
Education Has Offered Different Accountability Options for Students
with Limited English Proficiency, but State Officials Reported
Additional Flexibility Is Needed:
Education has offered states several flexibilities in tracking academic
progress goals for students with limited English proficiency to support
their efforts to develop appropriate accountability systems for these
students. In a February 2004 notice, Education recognized the existence
of language barriers that hinder the assessment of students who have
been in the country for a short time and provided some testing
flexibility for these students. Specifically, Education does not
require students with limited English proficiency to participate in a
state's language arts assessment during their first year in U.S.
schools. In addition, while these students must take a state's
mathematics assessment during their first year in U.S. schools, a state
may exclude their scores in determining whether it met its progress
goals.[Footnote 26]
Education offered additional flexibility in its February 2004 notice,
recognizing that limited English proficiency is a more transient
quality than having a disability or being of a particular race. Unlike
the other NCLBA student groups, students who achieve English
proficiency leave the group at the point when they are more prepared to
demonstrate their academic knowledge in English, while new students
with lower English proficiency are constantly entering the group (see
fig. 6). Given the group's continually changing composition, meeting
progress goals may be more difficult than doing so for other student
groups, especially in districts serving large numbers of students with
limited English proficiency. To compensate for this, Education allowed
states to include, for up to 2 years, the scores of students who were
formerly classified as limited English proficient when determining
whether a state met its progress goals for students with limited
English proficiency. In addition, Education has approved requests from
several states to permit students who have been redesignated as English
proficient to remain in the group of students with limited English
proficiency until they have achieved the proficient level on the
state's language arts assessment for 1 or more years.
Figure 6: Movement of Students In and Out of Limited English Proficient
Student Group and Other Student Groups:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion images.
[End of figure]
Several state and local officials in our study states told us that
additional flexibility would be helpful to ensure that the annual
progress measures provide meaningful information about the performance
of students with limited English proficiency. Officials in 4 of the
states we studied suggested that certain students with limited English
proficiency should be exempt for longer periods from taking academic
content assessments or that their test results should be excluded from
a state's annual progress determination for a longer period than is
currently allowed. Several officials voiced concern that some of these
students have such poor English skills or so little previous school
experience that the assessment results do not provide any meaningful
information. Instead, some of these officials stated that students with
limited English proficiency should not be included in academic
assessments until they demonstrate appropriate English skills on the
state's English language proficiency assessment. However, the National
Council of La Raza, an Hispanic advocacy organization, has voiced
concern that excluding too many students with limited English
proficiency from a state's annual progress measures will allow some
states and districts to overlook the needs of these students. Education
officials reported that they are developing a regulation with regard to
how test scores for this student group are included in a state's annual
progress measures, but it has not yet been finalized.
With respect to including the scores of students previously classified
as limited English proficient in a state's progress measures for this
group for up to 2 years, officials in 2 of our 5 study states, as well
as one member of our expert group, thought it would be more appropriate
for these students to be counted in the limited English proficient
group throughout their school careers--but only for accountability
purposes. They pointed out that by keeping students formerly classified
as limited English proficient in the group, districts that work well
with these students would see increases in the percentage who score at
the proficient level in language arts and mathematics. An Education
official explained that the agency does not want to label these
students as limited English proficient any longer than necessary and
considered including test results for these students for 2 years after
they have achieved English proficiency to be the right balance.
Education officials also noted that including all students who were
formerly limited English proficient would inflate the achievement
measures for the student group.
District officials in 4 of the states we studied argued that tracking
the progress of individual students in this group is a better measure
of how well these students are progressing academically. Officials in
one district pointed to a high school with a large percentage of
students with limited English proficiency that had made tremendous
progress with these students, doubling the percentage of students
achieving academic proficiency. The school missed the annual progress
target for this group by a few percentage points, but school officials
said that the school would be considered successful if it was measured
by how much individual students had improved in their test scores. A
district official in another state explained that many students with
limited English proficiency initially have very low test scores, but
demonstrate tremendous improvement in these scores over time. In
response to educators and policymakers who believe such an approach
should be used for all students, Education initiated a pilot project in
November 2005, allowing a limited number of states to incorporate
measures of student progress over time in determining whether districts
and schools met their annual progress goals. Even using this approach,
however, states must still establish annual goals that lead to all
students achieving proficient scores by 2014.[Footnote 27]
Conclusions:
NCLBA has focused attention on the academic performance of all
students, especially those who have historically not performed as well
as the general student population, such as students with limited
English proficiency. NCLBA requires states to include these students in
their language arts and mathematics assessments and to assess them in a
valid and reliable manner, and states are in various stages of doing
so. Although Education has provided some technical assistance to
states, our group of experts and others have noted the complexity of
developing academic assessments for these students and have raised
concerns about the technical expertise of states to ensure the validity
and reliability of assessment results. Using assessment results that
are not a good measure of student knowledge is likely to lead to poor
measures of state and district progress, thereby undermining NCLBA's
purpose to hold schools accountable for student progress. Further,
although most states offered these students accommodations, research on
their appropriateness is limited. National research on accommodations
has informed states' practices in assessing students with disabilities.
Without similar research efforts, accommodations offered to students
with limited English proficiency may not improve the validity of their
test results.
While Education has provided some support and training to states,
officials in a number of states are still uncertain about how to comply
with some of the more technical requirements of the new English
language proficiency assessments required by NCLBA. State officials
reported that they need more guidance from Education to develop these
assessments. States have had to develop many new assessments under
NCLBA for both English language proficiency and academic content, and
some states may lack the technical expertise to develop assessments
that produce valid results for students with limited English
proficiency. Without more specific guidance outlining Education's
requirements, states may spend time developing English language
proficiency assessments that do not adequately track student progress
in learning English or otherwise meet NCLBA's requirements.
Including students with limited English proficiency in NCLBA's
accountability framework presents unique challenges. For example,
students who have little formal schooling may make significant progress
in learning academic skills, but may not achieve proficiency on state
academic assessments for several years. The movement of students into
and out of the group also makes it more difficult for the group to meet
state progress goals, even when these students are making academic
progress. Education has addressed some of the unique characteristics of
this student group and provided some flexibility in how states and
districts are held accountable for the progress of these students.
However, these current flexibilities may not fully account for the
characteristics of certain students with limited English proficiency,
such as those who have little previous formal schooling.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Education:
1. Support additional research on appropriate accommodations for
students with limited English proficiency and disseminate information
on research-based accommodations to states.
2. Determine what additional technical assistance states need with
respect to assessing the academic knowledge of students with limited
English proficiency and to improve the validity and reliability of
their assessment results (such as consultations with assessment experts
and examples of assessments targeted to these students) and provide
such additional assistance.
3. Publish additional guidance with more specific information on the
requirements for assessing English language proficiency and tracking
the progress of students with limited English proficiency in learning
English.
4. Explore ways to provide additional flexibilities to states in terms
of holding states accountable for students with limited English
proficiency. For example, among the flexibilities that could be
considered are:
* allowing states to include the assessment scores for all students
formerly considered to have limited English proficiency in a state's
annual progress results for the group of students with limited English
proficiency,
* extending the period during which the assessment scores for some or
all students with limited English proficiency would not be included in
a state's annual progress results, and:
* adjusting how states account for recent immigrants with little formal
schooling in their annual progress results.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.
The agency provided comments, which are reproduced in appendix VII.
Education also provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated
when appropriate. Education agreed with our first three
recommendations. The department noted that it has conducted some
research on the effectiveness of accommodations and is currently
working with its National Research and Development Center for
Assessment and Accountability to synthesize the existing research
literature on the assessment of students with limited English
proficiency. Education also explained that it has begun the process of
identifying the additional technical assistance needs of states with
respect to academic assessments; specifically, it will have its
Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center conduct a needs
assessment this fall to determine specific areas in which states need
assistance and will provide technical assistance to address those
areas. In addition, the department stated that it is exploring ways to
help states assess English language proficiency.
Education did not explicitly agree or disagree with our fourth
recommendation. Instead, the agency commented that it has explored and
already provided various types of flexibility regarding the inclusion
of students with limited English proficiency in accountability systems.
Further, Education noted that it is in the process of completing a
regulation on flexibility for these students. However, the department
also emphasized that all students with limited English proficiency must
be included in school accountability systems to improve both
instruction and achievement outcomes. Through our recommendation, we
encourage the department to continue its efforts.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We
will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions or wish to discuss this report
further, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or at shaulm@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Other contacts
and major contributors are listed in appendix VIII.
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: GAO's Group of Experts on Assessing the Academic Knowledge
of Students with Limited English Proficiency:
On January 20, 2006, GAO, with the assistance of the National Academy
of Sciences, convened a group of experts in Davis, California, to
discuss issues related to assessing the academic knowledge of students
with limited English proficiency. Specifically, we asked the group to
discuss the following questions:
* To meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA),
what steps should states take to ensure the validity and reliability of
language arts and mathematics assessments for students with limited
English proficiency?
* What steps should states take to ensure that students with limited
English proficiency receive appropriate accommodations on language arts
and mathematics assessments?
* Given NCLBA's accountability framework, what is the most appropriate
way to hold schools and districts accountable for the performance of
students with limited English proficiency?
* How can the U.S. Department of Education assist states in their
efforts to meet NCLBA's assessment and accountability requirements for
students with limited English proficiency?
Group members who were selected had significant technical and research
expertise in assessments issues. Some members had technical expertise
on general assessment issues, while others had specifically conducted
assessment research focused on students with limited English
proficiency. The members of our expert group are listed below:
Dr. Jamal Abedi:
University of California, Davis:
Dr. Stephen Dunbar:
The University of Iowa:
Dr. Richard Durán:
University of California, Santa Barbara:
Dr. Steven Ferrara:
American Institutes for Research:
Dr. Patricia Gándara:
University of California, Davis:
Dr. Edward Haertel:
Stanford University:
Dr. Rebecca Kopriva:
University of Maryland:
Dr. Stanley Rabinowitz:
WestEd:
Dr. Charlene Rivera:
The George Washington University:
Dr. Rebecca Zwick:
University of California, Santa Barbara:
[End of section]
Appendix II: Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for Student Groups:
NCLBA requires states to report adequate yearly progress (AYP) results
at the state level for each of the required student groups, including
students with limited English proficiency. The law also requires
Education, starting in the 2004-2005 school year, to make an annual
determination about whether states have made adequate yearly progress
for each student group.[Footnote 28] Education has issued some general
regulations regarding state-level adequate yearly progress. However,
Education has not yet collected any such state-level adequate yearly
progress results and has not issued any guidance on how states should
determine whether a student group has made adequate yearly progress. As
a result, some states have not yet made adequate yearly progress
determinations for student groups at the state level.
In order for a student group, such as students with limited English
proficiency, to make adequate yearly progress, it must make a number of
different goals. Specifically:
* At least 95 percent of students in the group must take the state's
language arts and mathematics assessments, and:
* The student group must meet the progress goals established by the
state for both language arts and mathematics proficiency or:
* The percentage of students who did not achieve proficient scores must
have decreased by at least 10 percent from the previous year, and the
student group must also meet the progress goals established by the
state for its other academic indicator (graduation rate for high
schools and usually attendance rate for other schools).
Figure 7 illustrates the basic decision process for determining
adequate yearly progress for a student group.
Figure 7: Process for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for a
Student Group:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Because states have different assessment systems, they use different
methods for determining adequate yearly progress. A state can have an
assessment system that allows it to create the same progress goal for
mathematics and language arts for all grades, despite using different
tests in each grade. In this case, the state could review data for all
students in a student group across the state to determine if the group
met its annual progress goals. A state can also establish different
progress goals for different grades or groups of grades, depending on
the particular test being used. In this case, according to an Education
official, a state would have to meet all the proficiency and
participation goals for all the different grades or groups of grades in
order to make adequate yearly progress.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Percentage of Districts Making AYP Goals for Mathematics
for Students with Limited English Proficiency:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of district report cards and district data
provided by state officials.
Notes: Data are for school year 2003-2004.
We requested district-level achievement data from 20 states, and 18
states responded to our request.
When districts reported proficiency data for different grades or groups
of grades, we determined that the percentage of students with limited
English proficiency met a state's mathematics progress goal if the
student group met the goal for all grades reported.
Results from charter schools are included when a charter school is its
own school district or part of a larger school district.
Hawaii only has one school district.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Proficiency Scores on Mathematics Tests for All Students
and Students with Limited English Proficiency:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Consolidated performance reports for the 2003-2004 school
year.
Notes: New York and Tennessee did not provide assessment data in their
state consolidated performance reports for the 2003-2004 school year.
The results for Arkansas do not include those students with limited
English proficiency who were considered proficient based on the state's
portfolio assessment.
The total student population includes students with limited English
proficiency.
[A] Most states reported assessment data for students in the fourth
grade. States marked with this superscript reported on some other grade
at the elementary school level, usually either third grade or fifth
grade.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Enhanced Assessment Consortia Participation:
Assessment;
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium:
Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State- to-State
for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs);
State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS)
Consortium: English Language Development Assessment (ELDA);
Mountain West Assessment Consortium (MWAC): MWAC;
Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant (PA EAG): Comprehensive English
Language Learning Assessment (CELLA).
Consortia states: Using assessment in 2005-2006 school year;
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium:
Alabama Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Illinois Maine New
Hampshire New Jersey Oklahoma Rhode Island Vermont Wisconsin;
State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS)
Consortium: Iowa Louisiana Nebraska Ohio South Carolina West Virginia;
Mountain West Assessment Consortium (MWAC): Idaho[A] New Mexico[A]
Michigan [A, B];
Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant (PA EAG): Tennessee.
Consortia states: Not using assessment in 2005-2006 school year;
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium:
none;
State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS)
Consortium: Kentucky Nevada North Carolina Texas;
Mountain West Assessment Consortium (MWAC): Alaska Colorado Montana
Nevada North Dakota Utah Wyoming;
Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant (PA EAG): Florida Maryland
Michigan[B] Pennsylvania.
Source: Interviews with consortia and state officials.
Note: This table reflects states that participated in the consortia
prior to or during the 2005-2006 school year. Some states are no longer
consortia members.
[A] Using test items from consortium-developed assessment.
[B] Participated in more than one consortium.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: English Language Proficiency Assessments Used in the 2005-
2006 School Year, by State:
State: Alabama;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: Alaska;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: IDEA Proficiency Test.
State: Arizona;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Stanford English Language
Proficiency Test.
State: Arkansas;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: MAC II (Maculaitis Assessment
of Competencies) Test of English Language Proficiency.
State: California;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: California English Language
Development Test.
State: Colorado;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Colorado English Language
Assessment.
State: Connecticut;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS (Language Assessment
System) Links.
State: Delaware;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: District of Columbia;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: Florida;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Various off- the-shelf
tests[A].
State: Georgia;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: Hawaii;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS (Language Assessment
System) Links.
State: Idaho;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Mountain West Assessment
Consortium test items.
State: Illinois;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: Indiana;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS (Language Assessment
System) Links.
State: Iowa;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development
Assessment (SCASS).
State: Kansas;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Kansas English Language
Proficiency Assessment.
State: Kentucky;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: 2004 IDEA Proficiency Test or
Language Assessment Scales (LAS)[A].
State: Louisiana;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development
Assessment (SCASS).
State: Maine;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: Maryland;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS (Language Assessment
System) Links.
State: Massachusetts;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Massachusetts English
Proficiency Assessment.
State: Michigan;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Proficiency
Assessment[B] (includes Mountain West Consortium test items).
State: Minnesota;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Test of Emerging Academic
English, Minnesota Student Oral Language Observation Matrix, and
checklist for reading and writing for K-2 students.
State: Mississippi;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Stanford English Language
Proficiency Test.
State: Missouri;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: MAC II (Maculaitis Assessment
of Competencies) Test of English Language Proficiency.
State: Montana;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Iowa Test of Basic Skills,
Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey (English), or other state- approved
test[A].
State: Nebraska;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development
Assessment (SCASS).
State: Nevada;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS (Language Assessment
System) Links.
State: New Hampshire;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: New Jersey;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: New Mexico;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: New Mexico English Language
Proficiency Assessment (includes Mountain West Consortium test items).
State: New York;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: New York State English as a
Second Language Achievement Test.
State: North Carolina;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: IDEA Proficiency Test.
State: North Dakota;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: 2004 IDEA Proficiency Test,
Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey (English), and Language Assessment
Scales (LAS)[A].
State: Ohio;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development
Assessment (SCASS).
State: Oklahoma;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: Oregon;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Proficiency
Assessment[B].
State: Pennsylvania;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Stanford English Language
Proficiency Test.
State: Rhode Island;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: South Carolina;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development
Assessment (SCASS).
State: South Dakota;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Dakota English Language
Proficiency assessment.
State: Tennessee;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Comprehensive English Language
Learning Assessment (PA EAG).
State: Texas;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Texas English Language
Proficiency Assessment System; consists of Reading Proficiency Tests in
English and Texas Observation Protocols.
State: Utah;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: 2004 IDEA Proficiency Test.
State: Vermont;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: Virginia;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Stanford English Language
Proficiency Test.
State: Washington;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Washington Language
Proficiency Test.
State: West Virginia;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development
Assessment (SCASS).
State: Wisconsin;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners
(WIDA).
State: Wyoming;
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Wyoming English Language
Learner Assessment.
Source: Interviews with consortia and state officials.
[A] State allows school districts to individually choose tests.
[B] Assessments are not the same; Oregon's is a state developed
assessment, while Michigan's is a combination of an augmented version
of the Stanford English Language Proficiency Test and test items from
the Mountain West Assessment Consortium.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Office Of Elementary And Secondary Education:
The Assistant Secretary:
July 20, 2006:
Ms. Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
I am writing in response to your request for comments on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report (GAO-06-815), dated August
2006, and entitled "No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education
Could Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited
English Proficiency." I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
draft report and provide insight on our activities to support states in
serving limited English proficient (LEP) students.
The following are responses to the recommendations in the report to
assist states better measure the progress of students with limited
English proficiency:
Recommendation 1. Support additional research on appropriate
accommodations for students with limited English proficiency and
disseminate information on research-based accommodations to states.
The Department agrees with acquiring additional information on better
serving LEP students. The Department's Institute of Education Sciences
(IES), through its National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
has sponsored studies of the effectiveness of various accommodations
for LEP students, such as simplified English and use of translations,
glossaries, and bilingual dictionaries, and we have applied the
findings to NAEP. The Department has also shared the results of the
studies at various meetings and national conferences. NAEP has also
conducted studies on the impact on validity of test results of
providing accommodations to LEP students, and on the impact of
excluding such students from the assessment.
In addition, IES is working with its National Research and Development
Center for Assessment and Accountability --known as the Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) --to
synthesize the existing research literature on the assessment of LEP
students. The synthesis addresses both accessibility and validity.
After disseminating the information to states, CRESST will work with
states to help them review and improve their assessment instruments and
procedures, especially with regard to LEP students.
Recommendation 2. Determine what additional technical assistance states
need with respect to assessing the academic knowledge of students with
limited English proficiency and to improve the validity and reliability
of the assessment results (such as consultations with assessment
experts and examples of assessments targeted to these students) and
provide such additional assistance.
The Department has begun the process of identifying the additional
technical assistance needs of states related to assessing the academic
knowledge of limited English proficient students. For this process, the
Department is using the resources of our Assessment and Accountability
Comprehensive Center (AACC) and the 16 Regional Comprehensive Centers
(RCCs) funded by the Department. Specifically, the AACC has developed a
plan approved by the Department to provide information and resources to
the RCCs, and through the RCCs to State education agencies (SEAS),
regarding the assessment and accountability of their special student
populations (LEP students and students with disabilities). During 2006-
07 and subsequent years, the AACC will continue to address aspects of
assessment and accountability as they relate to LEP students. This
fall, the AACC will conduct a needs assessment of the RCCs and SEAS to
determine specific areas in which SEAS need assistance and,
subsequently, the AACC will use that information to develop resource
materials and to provide specific technical assistance. We anticipate
that the AACC, in coordination with the Department, will be able to
provide the following resources to the RCCs and SEAS during the 2006-07
school year:
1. A summary evaluation of evidence related to the technical aspects of
content or language proficiency assessments for LEP students (including
the reliability and validity of widely used instruments), and a
synopsis of information on existing available resources and on those
being developed. The evaluation will yield results that are intended to
assist consumers of assessments (e.g., SEAs, LEAs) for LEP students. It
will focus on the technical adequacy (i.e., validity, reliability,
freedom from bias) of evidence related to assessments used to meet
relevant Title I and Title III requirements under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act
(ESEA) (e.g., assessments developed specifically for a state,
consortium-developed assessments, assessments published for wider use).
Technical evidence associated with assessments for LEP students will be
evaluated against a comprehensive set of validated criteria (Rabinowitz
& Sato, 2005). Using the results of this evaluation, RCCs and SEAS
should be better able to gauge the technical adequacy of the
assessments they are using or have available for use with their LEP
students and to identify appropriate and necessary next steps for
ensuring the assessments' validity and, ultimately, the defensibility
of their assessment systems and results.
2. Guidelines for the interpretation of regulations regarding the
implementation of assessments for LEP students (under Titles I and III
of ESEA), including other pertinent statutes and regulations. These
guidelines are expected to address compliance with NCLB regulations for
special student populations such as LEP students and will provide
information to RCCs as they work with their states in gauging whether
they are meeting federal requirements; will focus attention on priority
issues related to implementing practices and systems that are in
compliance with federal regulations; and will select specific
implementation strategies, given the particular needs and conditions of
the state. Selected strategies will have evidence of effectiveness in a
state or states and will be examples of methods for enhancing and
supporting federal guidance.
3. Web-posting and dissemination of evidence-based products and
services for easy access to the most current information.
The AACC, headed by a national expert on assessment technical quality
and staffed by a team of academicians and former practitioners, is well
suited to conduct the needs assessment necessary to develop resources
and provide technical assistance. The Department will monitor the
development of the needs assessment and the subsequent activities of
the AACC to ensure that the information being developed is of
consistently high quality and relevance.
Recommendation 3. Publish additional guidance with more specific
information on the requirements for assessing English language
proficiency and tracking the progress of students with limited English
proficiency in learning English.
The Department agrees with this recommendation and is exploring ways -
-through guidance to states, the Office of English Language
Acquisition's annual Title III Summit, and other means --to help states
appropriately assess and track the progress of students with limited
proficiency in English.
Recommendation 4. Explore ways to provide additional flexibilities to
states in terms of holding states accountable for students with limited
English proficiency. Such flexibilities could include, for example.
* Allowing states to include the assessment scores for all students
formerly considered to have limited English proficiency in a state's
annual progress results for the group of students with limited English
proficiency,
* Extending the period during which the assessment scores for some or
all students with limited English proficiency would not be included in
a state's annual progress results, and:
* Adjusting how states account for recent immigrants with little formal
schooling in their annual progress results.
As your report points out, the Department has explored and has already
provided various types of flexibility to states regarding LEP students
and how they are considered in states' annual progress results. The
Department has engaged in discussions with researchers, practitioners,
and educators to explore appropriate means of providing appropriate
flexibility in holding schools accountable for the academic progress of
children who have not grown up speaking English.
NCLB gives states some flexibility in defining the students who
constitute the LEP subgroup. States also have some flexibility in
determining how to assess their LEP students. States can offer a menu
of accommodations (e.g., use of bilingual dictionaries, extra time, use
of translators) or develop alternative assessments (e.g., a native-
language version or simplified English version of its assessment). The
law also allows states three years to test LEP students in language
arts using a native language assessment, with an additional two years
if needed on a case-by-case basis.
The Department recognizes that LEP students new to the United States
often have some challenges in participating in state assessments due to
language barriers and the challenge of adjusting to U.S. schools. In
addition, because students exit the LEP subgroup once they attain
English language proficiency, states may have difficulty demonstrating
improvements on state assessments for these students.
To address these two issues, the Department has received public
comments on a notice of proposed rulemaking and is in the process of
completing a regulation on flexibility for "recent arrivals" and
"formerly LEP" students. In the meantime, the Department is
implementing a transitional policy with regard to these policy issues.
Under that transitional policy, recently arrived LEP students during
the first year of enrollment in U.S. schools can be exempted from
taking reading/language arts assessments and the scores of recently
arrived LEP students on state math assessments, as well as reading/
language arts assessments if taken, can be excluded from adequate
yearly progress (AYP) calculations for that first year in U.S. schools
as well. In addition, the flexibility allows states to include, within
the LEP subgroup for AYP purposes, for up to two years, the scores on
state assessments for "formerly LEP" students who have since attained
English proficiency.
While the Department has explored and implemented flexibility policies
related to LEP students, we also know that regular and high-quality
student assessment, school accountability, and clear and accessible
data and information about student and school performance are
absolutely essential to improving instruction for LEP students. The No
Child Left Behind Act shines a bright light on the needs of students
who have so often been left behind in our Nation's schools - including
students with limited English proficiency. Therefore, the Department
believes that all LEP students need to be included and visible in our
school accountability systems to improve both instruction and
achievement outcomes. The ability to better measure performance and
analyze student data is an important vehicle for improving instruction
and closing the achievement gap for LEP students and reaching the goal
of the No Child Left Behind Act of 100 percent of students being able
to master grade level work by 2013-14.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our comments, accomplishments
and plans. Please let me know if you need additional information
regarding activities underway at the Department to assist States better
measure the progress of students with limited English proficiency.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Henry L. Johnson:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Marnie Shaul, (202) 512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov and Cornelia Ashby (202)
512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Michelle St. Pierre (Analyst-
in-Charge) managed all aspects of this assignment. Shannon Groff,
Eileen Harrity, and Krista Loose made significant contributions to this
report. Katie Brillantes contributed to the initial design of the
assignment. Carolyn Boyce, John Mingus, and Lynn Musser provided key
technical support, James Rebbe provided legal support, and Scott
Heacock assisted in message and report development.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
No Child Left Behind Act:, States Face Challenges Measuring Academic
Growth That Education's Initiatives May Help Address. GAO-06-661.
Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education's
Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification
Requirements. GAO-06-25. Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More to Help States Better
Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention
Strategies. GAO-05-879. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated
in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved. GAO-
05-618. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005.
Head Start: Further Development Could Allow Results of New Test to Be
Used for Decision Making. GAO-05-343. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional
Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School
Choice Provision. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process
for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734.
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.
FOOTNOTES
[1] For more information on differences in state approaches to meeting
NCLBA requirements, see GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements
Needed in Education's Process for Tracking States' Implementation of
Key Provisions, GAO-04-734 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004).
[2] These standards are sponsored and published jointly by the American
Educational Research Association, the American Psychological
Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education.
[3] We included the District of Columbia in our 48-state total.
[4] In 7 of the 17 states, students with limited English proficiency
met a state's adequate yearly progress goals through NCLBA's safe
harbor provision--that is, by decreasing the percentage of students
scoring nonproficient by 10 percent or more and showing progress on
another academic indicator.
[5] We requested district data from 20 states, and 18 states responded
to our request.
[6] The number of districts reporting results for these students may
increase in the future, since states were required to assess students
in more grades beginning with the 2005-2006 school year. Testing in
more grades will likely increase the number of districts meeting the
minimum number of limited English proficient students that will be
required to separately report proficiency results.
[7] States determine the minimum number of students in a student group,
usually between 25 and 45 students.
[8] Student groups are not mutually exclusive, with each of the ethnic
and racial categories probably including some number of students with
limited English proficiency. For example, the results for a student who
is both white and limited English proficient would be included in both
groups.
[9] Under NCLBA, states are required to participate in the National
Assessment of Educational Progress for reading and mathematics
assessments in grades four and eight. The results from these
assessments provide a national measure of student achievement and serve
as confirmatory evidence about student achievement on state tests.
[10] Example taken from Robert L. Linn, "CRESST Policy Brief 8: Fixing
the NCLB Accountability System," Policy Brief of the National Center
for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Summer
2005.
[11] Theodore Coladarci, Gallup Goes to School: The Importance of
Confidence Intervals for Evaluating "Adequate Yearly Progress" in Small
Schools, the Rural School and Community Trust Policy Brief, Oct. 2003,
and Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Steiger, "Volatility in School Test
Scores: Implications for Test-Based Accountability Systems," in Diane
Ravitch, ed., Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2002, pp. 235-283.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
[12] Center on Education Policy, "From the Capital to the Classroom:
Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act," March 2006.
[13] When using confidence intervals, upper and lower limits around a
district's or state's percentage of proficient students are calculated,
creating a range of values within which there is "confidence" the true
value lies. For example, instead of saying that 72 percent of students
scored at the proficient level or above on a test, a confidence
interval may show that percentage to be between 66 and 78 percent, with
95 percent confidence.
[14] As of July 2006, Education had conducted peer reviews of 50 states
and the District of Columbia. However, detailed peer review notes were
available from only 38 states at the time of our review.
[15] States were given several years to meet the requirements of the
Improving America's School Act of 1994.
[16] Christopher Jepsen and Shelley de Alth, "English Learners in
California Schools," (San Francisco, California: Public Policy
Institute of California, 2005).
[17] Charlene Rivera and Eric Collum. An Analysis of State Assessment
Policies Addressing the Accommodation of English Language Learners. The
George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in
Education, Arlington, Virginia: (January 2004).
[18] Education officials told us that the agency has approved an
extension of this deadline for 1 state and is currently considering
extension requests from 2 other states.
[19] The four consortia include the World-Class Instructional Design
and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium, State Collaborative on Assessment and
Student Standards (SCASS) Consortium, Mountain West Assessment
Consortium (MWAC), and Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant (PA EAG)
Consortium.
[20] Although these assessments are not fully aligned to state
standards, Education officials noted that they have not yet provided
states guidance on what level of alignment the agency expects. Thus,
some of these may ultimately meet Education's requirements.
[21] Stanley Rabinowitz and Edynn Sato, "Evidence-Based Plan: Technical
Adequacy of Assessments for Alternate Student Populations: A Technical
Review of High-Stakes Assessments for English Language Learners,"
WestEd (December 2005).
[22] The states providing these comments represent more than our 5 case
study states. We also contacted officials in 28 additional states to
determine what English language proficiency assessment they planned to
use in 2006.
[23] Education does not require state English language proficiency
tests to be aligned to state academic standards. However, states'
English language proficiency tests and academic standards are
connected, in that Education requires that state's English language
proficiency tests be aligned to state English language proficiency
standards and NCLBA requires that state English language proficiency
standards be aligned with state academic standards.
[24] We reviewed reports from Title III monitoring visits of 13 states
conducted between April and October 2005 that were available from
Education as of March 31, 2006.
[25] Education has sent letters to the remaining states outlining the
issues that need to be resolved in order for their assessment systems
to be approved.
[26] On June 24, 2004, Education issued proposed regulations on these
flexibilities for students with limited English proficiency for public
comment, but the regulations have not been finalized as of June 2006.
[27] See GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges
Measuring Academic Growth That Education's Initiatives May Help
Address, GAO-06-661 (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006) for further
information on Education's pilot project.
[28] NCLBA also requires Education to annually determine whether states
have met their Title III goals related to increases in students making
progress in learning English and attaining English proficiency.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
