This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-140 
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Education's Data Improvement 
Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds' 
which was released on December 8, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

December 2006: 

No Child Left Behind Act: 

Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for 
Distributing Title III Funds: 

GAO-07-140: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-140, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) designates 
federal funds to support the education of students with limited English 
proficiency and provides for formula-based grants to states. This 
report describes the data the Education Department used to distribute 
Title III funds and the implications of data measurement issues for the 
two allowable sources of data— American Community Survey (ACS) and 
state assessment data—for allocating funds across states. In addition, 
the report describes changes in federal funding to support these 
students under NCLBA and how states and school districts used these 
funds as well as Education’s Title III oversight and support to states. 
To address these objectives, GAO reviewed documentation on ACS and 
state data, interviewed federal and state officials, and collected data 
from 12 states, 11 districts, and 6 schools. 

What GAO Found: 

Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funds, but measurement 
issues with both ACS and state data could result in funding 
differences. Education used ACS data primarily because state data were 
incomplete. In September, Education officials told us they were 
developing plans to clarify instructions for state data submissions to 
address identified inconsistencies. While Education officials expected 
their efforts to improve the quality of the data, they told us that 
they had not established criteria or a methodology to determine the 
relative accuracy of the two data sources. State data represent the 
number of students with limited English proficiency assessed annually 
for English proficiency, and ACS data are based in part on responses to 
subjective English ability questions from a sample of the population. 
ACS data showed large increases and decreases in numbers of these 
students from 2003 to 2004 in part due to sample size. ACS data and 
state counts of students with limited English proficiency for the 12 
study states differed (see graph). GAO’s simulation of the distribution 
of Title III funds for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 based on these 
numbers showed that there would be differences in how much funding 
states would receive. 

Figure: Percentage Differences between State-Reported Data (2004-05) 
and 2004 ACS Data in 12 Study States: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO analysis of state and ACS data. 

[End of Figure] 

In fiscal year 2006, Congress authorized over $650 million in Title III 
funding for students with limited English proficiency––an increase of 
over $200 million since fiscal year 2001 under NCLBA. This increase in 
funding as well as the change in how funds are distributed—from a 
primarily discretionary grant program to a formula grant 
program—contributed to more districts receiving federal funding to 
support students with limited English proficiency since the enactment 
of NCLBA. States and school districts used Title III funds to support 
programs and activities including language instruction and professional 
development. Education provided oversight and support to states. 
Officials from 5 of the 12 study states reported overall satisfaction 
with the support from Education. However, some officials indicated that 
they needed more guidance in certain areas, such as developing English 
language proficiency assessments that meet NCLBA's requirements. 
Education is taking steps to address issues states identified. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that Education provide clear instructions to states on 
how and where to provide data specified in NCLBA on the number of 
students with limited English proficiency, develop and implement a 
methodology for determining which is the more accurate of the two 
allowable sources of data, and seek authority to use statistical 
methodologies to reduce the volatility associated with ACS data. 
Education generally agreed with GAO’s recommendations. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-140]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 
512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Education Used Census' ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds Because 
State Data Were Incomplete and Data Measurement Issues Could Result in 
Funding Differences across States: 

Under NCLBA, Federal Funding for Students with Limited English 
Proficiency and Immigrant Children and Youth Has Increased, and More 
School Districts Are Receiving Funds: 

States and School Districts Used Title III Funds to Support Programs 
for Students with Limited English Proficiency, but Some Cited 
Challenges Recruiting Highly Qualified Staff: 

Education Provided Oversight and Support to Help States Meet Title III 
Requirements: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language 
Instruction: 

Appendix II: Language Instruction Educational Programs Used by States 
in School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Students with 
Limited English Proficiency: 

Table 2: Volatility in ACS Data: 

Table 3: Allocation of Title III Funds for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006: 

Table 4: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Immigrant 
Children and Youth: 

Table 5: Number of States, Including the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds to Support Different 
Types of Language Instruction Programs: 

Table 6: Number of States, including the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds for Various State- 
Level Activities: 

Table 7: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language Instruction: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (State 
Data): 

Figure 2: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (ACS): 

Figure 3: Percentage Differences between School Year 2004-05 State- 
Reported Data and 2004 ACS Data in 12 Study States: 

Figure 4: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based 
on a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2005): 

Figure 5: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based 
on a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2006): 

Figure 6: Appropriations for Programs to Support Students with Limited 
English Proficiency Fiscal Years 2001-06: 

Figure 7: Distribution of Title VII and Title III Funds Provided to 
States in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006: 

Abbreviations: 

ACS: American Community Survey: 

ESL: English as a second language: 

ESOL: English for Speakers of Other Languages: 

NCELA: National Clearinghouse of English Language Acquisition: 

NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

December 7, 2006: 

The Honorable George Miller: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Education and the Workforce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Select Education: 
Committee on Education and the Workforce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Lynn Woolsey: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Education: 
Reform Committee on Education and the Workforce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Raúl Grijalva: 
House of Representatives: 

An estimated 5 million students with limited English proficiency were 
enrolled in the nation's public schools in the 2003-04 school year, and 
this population has been growing. Title III of the No Child Left Behind 
Act of 2001 (NCLBA) designates federal funds to support the education 
of students with limited English proficiency. We addressed how states 
can better measure the progress of these students in our July 2006 
report.[Footnote 1] NCLBA, which reauthorized the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, provides for formula-based grants to states, 
replacing the discretionary grants authorized under Title VII of the 
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. In particular, under NCLBA, 
the Secretary of Education is required to base the distribution of 
funds on the more accurate of two allowable sources of data on the 
population of children and youth with limited English proficiency and 
immigrants: the Bureau of the Census' (Census) American Community 
Survey (ACS) data or state-collected data. However, questions have been 
raised about data measurement issues, such as what the data are 
designed to measure and how that measurement occurs, that affect the 
data the Department of Education (Education) can use to distribute 
Title III funds. Congress is interested in the implications of using 
each of the two data sources to distribute these funds as well as other 
issues related to serving students with limited English proficiency. In 
response to congressional interest we agreed to answer the following 
questions: 1) What data does Education use to distribute Title III 
funds and what are the implications of data measurement issues for the 
two allowable sources of data for allocating funds across states? 2) 
How have the level and distribution of federal funds to support 
students with limited English proficiency changed under NCLBA? 3) How 
do states and school districts use Title III funds? 4) How has 
Education provided oversight and support to help states meet Title III 
requirements? 

In doing our work we used a variety of methodological approaches. To 
address how data measurement issues affect the distribution of Title 
III funds to states and to determine the implications of these issues, 
we reviewed documentation and literature about ACS data, including 
prior GAO reports, and interviewed Census officials knowledgeable about 
ACS. We also analyzed information in 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation 
Reports and Consolidated State Performance Reports for the 2003-04 and 
2004-05 school years--the most recent years for which these reports 
were available--for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
Rico. We analyzed the data that states reported related to the number 
of students with limited English proficiency and recent immigrant 
students. We selected 12 states and collected data related to students 
with limited English proficiency and those students classified as 
recent immigrants. To assess the reliability of state data, we 
interviewed knowledgeable state officials about data quality control 
procedures and potential limitations of these data and data systems. We 
also reviewed relevant documents. We determined that the data obtained 
from these states related to students with limited English proficiency 
were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. The selected states have 
large or growing populations of these students, are geographically 
diverse, and represent more than 75 percent of both Title III funding 
and the population of students with limited English proficiency. We 
visited 6 of the 12 states--Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, 
Nevada, and Texas--and called officials in the other 6 states-- 
Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. 
We simulated the distribution of Title III funds to the 12 states based 
on state-reported data and compared the results to the actual 
distribution for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years. To address the 
second and third questions, we used information from the states' 
Biennial Evaluation Reports, including information on the number of 
subgrantees receiving Title III funds in each state and how states used 
Title III funds. We also gathered in-depth information on funding and 
programs that support students with limited English proficiency from 
the12 study states. We reviewed Education documents and interviewed 
Education officials, including officials from the Office of English 
Language Acquisition, the Office of Budget Service, and the National 
Center for Education Statistics, to obtain information about funding 
distribution and Education's support to states. In addition, we met 
with officials in 11 school districts and 1 school in each of these 
districts to collect in-depth information on how funds were used in the 
6 states we visited. Finally, to complete the answer to the question 
relevant to Education's oversight and support, we reviewed the guidance 
Education has issued on Title III and analyzed Education's 21 Title III 
monitoring reports completed as of September 30 and states' responses 
to these reports as available. We also interviewed state officials in 
our 12 study states. We conducted our work from December 2005 to 
September 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funding across states; 
however, Education has not developed a methodology to determine the 
more accurate of the two allowable data sources, and measurement issues 
in either allowable source could affect the amount of funding each 
state receives. Some states provided incomplete data and others 
provided inconsistent data to Education on the number of students with 
limited English proficiency in the Consolidated State Performance 
Reports, in part, because of unclear instructions. Education officials 
told us that their ongoing reviews of state data and preliminary plans 
to clarify some report instructions should improve these data. 
Education officials also told us they used ACS data primarily because 
the state data were incomplete. However, Education officials told us 
they have not established criteria or a methodology to evaluate the 
relative accuracy of the two data sources once the state data are 
complete. ACS and state data each measure different populations in 
distinct ways, and it is unclear how well either of the two data 
sources captures the population of children with limited English 
proficiency. With respect to state data, differences in how states 
identify which students have limited English proficiency could affect 
the numbers states report to Education and could ultimately affect the 
distribution of Title III funds. ACS data present challenges as well. 
For example, responses to subjective English ability questions on the 
ACS survey showed some inconsistency when Census officials re- 
interviewed respondents. In addition, the ACS data showed large 
increases and decreases in the numbers of students with limited English 
proficiency from 2003 to 2004. Some of these fluctuations could be due 
to sampling error. Our simulation of the distribution of Title III 
funds for 12 study states for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 using both ACS 
data and state-collected counts of students with limited English 
proficiency showed that in each year there would be differences in how 
much funding each of the 12 study states would receive. 

An increase in funding as well as a change in how funds are distributed 
contributed to more school districts receiving federal funding to 
support students with limited English proficiency since the enactment 
of NCLBA. In fiscal year 2006, Congress authorized and Education 
provided over $650 million to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 
and Puerto Rico, mostly through formula grants for programs that 
support students with limited English proficiency. This authorization 
represented an increase of more than $200 million from fiscal year 
2001, the last year Education made discretionary grants for similar 
purposes under Title VII of the Improving America's Schools Act. Under 
the Title III formula grant program in fiscal year 2006, the funds were 
distributed based primarily on the number of students with limited 
English proficiency. As a result of the change to a formula grant, more 
school districts received funds under Title III than under Title VII. 
For example, in three of our study states (California, Texas, and 
Illinois) more than 1,900 school districts received Title III funds in 
the 2003-04 school year, compared to about 500 school districts 
(including districts with schools that received Title VII grants) that 
received Title VII funding in fiscal year 2001. 

States and school districts reported using Title III funds to support 
programs and activities including language instruction and professional 
development as well as to support activities for immigrant children and 
youth, but some study states and school districts cited challenges in 
recruiting qualified staff. All states, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico reported that school districts receiving Title III funds 
provided a variety of language instruction programs. They also reported 
that school districts conducted professional development activities for 
teachers or other personnel, such as workshops on effective teaching 
strategies for students with limited English proficiency. Forty-six 
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported that school 
districts conducted activities to support immigrant children and youth, 
such as providing tutorials, mentoring, or parent outreach. Similarly, 
in the 12 study states and 11 school districts we visited in 6 of these 
states, Title III funds were used to support a variety of programs and 
activities for students with limited English proficiency, such as 
professional development, tutoring, and parent outreach. According to 
state Biennial Evaluation Reports, the majority of states provided 
professional development to help teachers and other staff meet state 
and local certification and licensing requirements for teaching 
students with limited English proficiency. However, officials in some 
study states identified challenges recruiting qualified staff. 
Specifically, officials in 5 of the 12 study states and 8 school 
districts we visited noted that difficulty hiring qualified teachers or 
other personnel who meet NCLBA requirements presented challenges to 
implementing effective programs. 

Education provided states oversight, such as Title III-monitoring 
visits, and a variety of support, such as providing technical 
assistance and guidance through annual conferences and Web casts, to 
help states meet Title III requirements. Officials from 5 of the 12 
study states reported general satisfaction with the support Education 
provided. One area that officials from seven of the study states 
identified as difficult was how to address the needs of those students 
having both limited English proficiency and disabilities, such as those 
with the most significant cognitive disabilities. An Education official 
stated that there is limited research on approaches for addressing this 
group, but Education is working with states and experts to explore the 
appropriate identification, assessment, placement, and interventions 
for such students. In addition, officials in 5 of the 12 states thought 
more guidance was needed on developing English language proficiency 
assessments that meet NCLBA's requirements. In our July 2006 report, we 
recommended that Education identify and provide technical support that 
states need to ensure the validity of academic assessments and publish 
additional guidance on requirements for assessing English language 
proficiency, among other things. Education agreed with our 
recommendations and has begun to identify the additional technical 
assistance needs of states and ways to provide additional guidance in 
these areas. 

To address issues related to Title III allocation, we recommended that 
Education (1) include clear instructions about how to provide correct 
and complete state data on the number of students with limited English 
proficiency assessed annually for proficiency in English; (2) develop 
and implement a transparent methodology for determining the relative 
accuracy of the two allowable sources of data--ACS or state data on the 
number of students with limited English proficiency assessed annually-
-for Title III allocations to states; and (3) seek authority to use 
statistical methodologies to reduce the volatility associated with the 
ACS data. In comments, Education generally agreed with our 
recommendations. 

Background: 

Since the 1960's, the federal government has provided resources to 
support the education of students with limited English proficiency. 
Federal funding has supported school districts, colleges and 
universities, and research centers to assist students in attaining 
English proficiency and in meeting academic standards. In addition to 
federal funding, state and local agencies provide significant funding 
to support the education of these students. The evolving educational 
standards movement and NCLBA have reshaped how the federal government 
views and supports programs for elementary and secondary school 
students whose native language is not English. 

Prior to Title III of NCLBA, federal funding provided under Title VII 
of the Improving America's Schools Act supported services for students 
with limited English proficiency. Both Title III and Title VII were 
designed to target students with limited English proficiency, including 
immigrant children and youth, supporting these students in attaining 
English proficiency and meeting the same academic content standards all 
students are expected to meet.[Footnote 2] However, Title III differs 
from Title VII in terms of funding methods and requirements for 
academic standards and English language proficiency standards and 
assessments. In particular, Title III provides for formula-based grants 
whereas Title VII provided funds primarily through discretionary 
grants. Title III also requires states to have English language 
proficiency standards that are aligned with the state academic content 
standards, in addition to annually assessing the English language 
proficiency of students having limited English proficiency. GAO 
reported on the academic achievement of these students and the validity 
and reliability of assessments used to measure their performance. We 
recommended that Education undertake a variety of activities to help 
states better measure the progress of these students under 
NCLBA.[Footnote 3] 

Title VII authorized various discretionary grants to eligible states, 
school districts, institutions of higher education, or community-based 
organizations to, among other things, assist with the development of 
instructional programs for students with limited English proficiency. 
Under Title VII, colleges and universities also could apply for grants 
to provide professional development programs on instructional and 
assessment methodologies and strategies as well as resources specific 
to limited English proficient students for teachers and other staff 
providing services to these students. Title VII also required that 
funds be set aside for the establishment and operation of a national 
clearinghouse for information on programs for students with limited 
English proficiency. In addition, Title VII offered a formula grant 
program to support enhanced instructional opportunities in school 
districts that experienced unexpectedly large increases in their 
immigrant student population. States with districts that had large 
numbers or percentages of immigrant students were eligible to receive 
funds under this program. 

Distribution of Title III Funds: 

In contrast to Title VII, Title III of NCLBA requires Education to 
allocate funds to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
Rico[Footnote 4] based on a formula incorporating the population of 
children with limited English proficiency and the population of 
immigrant children and youth in each state (relative to national counts 
of these populations). Specifically, funds are to be distributed to 
states as follows: 

* 80 percent based on the population of children with limited English 
proficiency, and: 

* 20 percent based on the population of recently immigrated children 
and youth (relative to national counts of these populations).[Footnote 
5] 

NCLBA provides that Education is to determine the number of children 
with limited English proficiency and immigrant children and youth using 
the more accurate of two data sources: the number of students with 
limited English proficiency who are assessed under NCLBA for English 
proficiency,[Footnote 6] or data from ACS, which is based on responses 
to a series of relevant questions.[Footnote 7] 

Education allocates these funds after making certain reservations. For 
example, each fiscal year Education must reserve 0.5 percent or $5 
million, whichever is greater, for providing grants to schools and 
other eligible entities that support language instruction educational 
projects for Native American children (including Alaska Native 
children) with limited English proficiency. Also, a reservation of 6.5 
percent is made to support activities including the National 
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction 
Educational Programs[Footnote 8] and to provide grants for professional 
development to improve educational services for children with limited 
English proficiency.[Footnote 9] Institutions of higher education in 
consortia with school districts or state educational agencies may apply 
for these discretionary grants. 

Once states receive Title III funds from Education, they are allowed to 
set aside up to 5 percent of these funds for certain state-level 
activities, including administration. In addition, Title III requires 
each state to use up to 15 percent of its formula grant to award 
subgrants to its school districts with significant increases in school 
enrollment of immigrant children and youth, before distributing the 
remainder across school districts in proportion to the number of 
students with limited English proficiency. 

School Districts' Uses of Title III Funds: 

School districts are required to use Title III funds to provide 
scientifically based language instruction programs for students with 
limited English proficiency[Footnote 10] and to provide professional 
development to teachers or other personnel.[Footnote 11] School 
districts may also use Title III funds for other purposes, including: 

* to develop and implement language instruction programs for such 
students; 

* to upgrade program objectives and instruction strategies, curricula, 
educational software, and assessment procedures for such students; 

* to provide tutorials or intensified instruction for these students; 

* to provide community participation programs, family literacy 
services, and parent outreach for these students and their families; 

* to acquire educational technology or instructional materials; and: 

* to provide access to electronic networks for materials, training, and 
communication. 

School districts that receive funds because they have experienced 
substantial increases in immigrant children and youth are to use these 
funds for activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities 
for these students. Such activities may include family literacy 
programs designed to assist parents in becoming active participants in 
the education of their children; services such as tutoring, mentoring, 
and academic or career counseling for these students; support for 
teacher aides trained specifically for working with these students; the 
acquisition of instructional materials or software; and programs 
designed to introduce these students to the educational system. 

American Community Survey: 

An Office of Management and Budget-sponsored interagency committee, 
including Education, exists to determine questions to be included on 
the ACS and decennial census. Education's National Center for Education 
Statistics represented the department in the determination of the 
questions used by Census. The current language questions were developed 
for the 1980 census to obtain information needed about current language 
use and limited English language proficiency as a result of legislation 
such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Bilingual Education Act, and 
the Voting Rights Act. These questions remain in their original form 
and have not been modified since the passage of NCLBA. 

State Data (Number of Students with Limited English Proficiency 
Assessed): 

The other data source specified by NCLBA as a potential basis for the 
distribution of Title III funding--the number of students with limited 
English proficiency who are assessed annually for proficiency in 
English--would generally come from the states. States report the number 
of students assessed to Education in their Consolidated State 
Performance Reports. States are to report the number of these students 
served by Title III who are assessed annually for proficiency in 
English in the state Biennial Evaluation Reports to Education. 

Oversight: 

Education has responsibility for general oversight under Title III of 
NCLBA, including providing guidance and technical assistance, 
monitoring, and reporting information to Congress on students with 
limited English proficiency based on data collected in the Consolidated 
State Performance Reports and Biennial Evaluation Reports. Education 
reviews state plans, which all states have submitted. These plans, as 
required by Title III, outline the process that the state will use in 
making subgrants to eligible entities and provide evidence that 
districts conduct annual assessments for English proficiency that meet 
the law's requirements, along with other information. By June 2003, 
Education had reviewed and approved all state plans; Education has 
since reviewed and approved many plan amendments submitted by states. 

Education Used Census' ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds Because 
State Data Were Incomplete and Data Measurement Issues Could Result in 
Funding Differences across States: 

Education used ACS data to distribute Title III funds across states 
although measurement issues with ACS and state-reported data could 
affect the amount of funding that each state receives. Education has 
not developed a methodology to determine the more accurate of the 
allowable data once state data are complete. The two data sources 
differ in what they measure and how that measurement occurs. These 
differences between the data sources have implications for funding 
levels--some states could receive more funding while others could 
receive less depending on which data source Education uses. 

Education Used ACS Data to Distribute Title III Funds across States, 
but Has Not Developed a Methodology to Determine the More Accurate of 
the Allowable Data--State Data or ACS Data: 

Education based the distribution of Title III funding across states on 
Census' ACS data for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. In both years, 
Education used these data to determine the number of children and youth 
with limited English proficiency as well as the number of children and 
youth who were recent immigrants. Prior to fiscal year 2005, Education 
used Census 2000 data for the number of children and youth with limited 
English proficiency and relied on state-reported data for the number of 
recent immigrants.[Footnote 12] 

Education officials determined that the ACS data were more accurate 
than state data--primarily because the state data provided in the 
Consolidated State Performance Reports on the number of students with 
limited English proficiency who were assessed for English proficiency 
across three dimensions (reading, writing, and oral) were incomplete. 
Education officials explained that not all states provided these data 
for school year 2004-05, and some provided data that included only 
partial counts of students.[Footnote 13] For example according to 
Education, some states, such as California and Texas, did not assess 
all students with limited English proficiency.[Footnote 14] Education 
officials told us that the lack of complete state data was, in part, 
due to the time needed to establish academic standards and align 
English language proficiency assessments to those standards and collect 
the related data. 

Education officials also explained that some states provided 
inconsistent data on the number of students with limited English 
proficiency who were assessed for English proficiency in the 
Consolidated State Performance Reports because instructions for 
providing this information did not include definitions of the data to 
be collected. Similarly, we found that these instructions could be 
interpreted to ask for different data elements. For example, it was 
unclear whether states should provide the number of students screened 
for English proficiency, the number of students who were already 
identified as limited English proficient who were then assessed for 
their proficiency or a combination of the two numbers. Further it was 
not clear whether or not states were to provide an unduplicated count-
-as some states use more than one assessment to evaluate a student's 
mastery of the various dimensions of English proficiency (reading, 
writing, and oral). Such students may be reported more than once. As a 
result, some states included duplicate counts of students, and in other 
states, these data included other student counts (based on screening of 
new students rather than assessments of already identified students as 
specified in the law). In September 2006, Education officials told us 
that they plan to modify the instructions for providing these data in 
the Consolidated State Performance Report for school year 2006-07 data 
that is to be submitted in December of 2007. However, the officials did 
not have a copy of a plan or proposed modifications. 

During the time of our engagement, Education was in the process of 
reviewing state data and providing feedback to the states based on both 
school year 2003-04 and 2004-05 Consolidated State Performance Report 
data. Education performed this effort in part to improve the quality of 
state data entered into Education's national data system. This effort 
included comparing recent data to data provided in previous years and 
incorporating data edits and checks to guide state officials as they 
entered relevant data electronically. Education officials told us that 
they expect this review along with feedback to the states to result in 
improved data for school year 2005-06 and beyond. They also told us 
that they believe their efforts to address state data quality, 
including clarifying Consolidated State Performance Report instructions 
and reviewing state-provided data, will result in improved information 
on the number of students with limited English proficiency who were 
assessed for English proficiency. 

While Education officials expected that their efforts would improve the 
quality of the data, they told us that they had not established 
criteria or a methodology to determine the relative accuracy of the two 
data sources. Education officials stated that as the state data improve 
and become complete, complex analysis will be needed to determine the 
relative accuracy of these data and the ACS data. 

The Allowable State Data and the ACS Data Differ in What They Measure 
and How That Measurement Occurs: 

The two allowable sources of data measure fundamentally different 
populations. The state data specified in NCLBA are to represent those 
students with limited English proficiency who are assessed annually for 
proficiency. In contrast, the ACS data that Education uses to represent 
students with limited English proficiency are based on self-reported 
survey responses to particular questions of a sample of the population. 
Table 1 compares different characteristics of these data, including 
what they measure and how. 

Table 1: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Students with 
Limited English Proficiency: 

Feature: Measures provided; 
ACS data used to represent the number of students with limited English 
proficiency[A]: Number of persons ages 5 to 21 who speak a language 
other than English at home and report speaking English less than "very 
well"; 
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number 
assessed annually for English proficiency: Number of students with 
limited English proficiency in grades K-12 who are assessed for English 
proficiency; 
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number 
identified as limited English proficient: Number of students identified 
as limited English proficient in grades K-12. 

Feature: How it is measured; 
ACS data used to represent the number of students with limited English 
proficiency[A]: Self report (sample of population). Collected by Census 
Bureau; 
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number 
assessed annually for English proficiency: State developed/approved 
assessments. Collected by state and local officials; 
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number 
identified as limited English proficient: Varies across states, 
includes a Home Language Survey. Collected by state and local 
officials. 

Feature: Timing; 
ACS data used to represent the number of students with limited English 
proficiency[A]: Annual average of monthly sample; 
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number 
assessed annually for English proficiency: Varies; usually in spring; 
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number 
identified as limited English proficient: Varies: cumulative count, 
average, one time snapshot. 

Feature: Purpose; 
ACS data used to represent the number of students with limited English 
proficiency[A]: To comply with Voting Rights Act, Older Americans Act, 
and NCLBA requirements; To provide information to serve the needs of 
the foreign-born and those with limited English proficiency; 
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number 
assessed annually for English proficiency: NCLBA requirement to track 
the progress to proficiency in English of identified students; NCLBA 
provision as allowable data source for Title III allocation; 
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number 
identified as limited English proficient: To identify children who need 
to be offered services. 

Feature: Education's role in data collection; 
ACS data used to represent the number of students with limited English 
proficiency[A]: Work with Census to make sure appropriate questions are 
included; Can propose new questions, if necessary; 
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number 
assessed annually for English proficiency: Has required states to 
assess students annually; Has not yet specifically compiled complete 
information on the number of students assessed; 
State data on students with limited English proficiency[B]: Number 
identified as limited English proficient: Has required states to 
collect and report these data. 

Source: Census, Education, and data obtained by Education from ACS. 

[A] This column refers to data obtained by Education from ACS, but ACS 
collects additional data. 

[B] Some states may have data available for children prior to 
kindergarten. 

[End of table] 

NCLBA requires that all students with limited English proficiency are 
assessed annually for proficiency in English. However, states have 
different methods of identifying which students have limited English 
proficiency (see fig. 1). These varied methods, along with any 
differences in interpreting student performance on such screenings, 
could result in a lack of uniformity in the population identified as 
having limited English proficiency. States generally employ home 
language surveys--questionnaires asking what languages are spoken at 
home--to determine which students should be screened for English 
proficiency. However, beyond the home language survey, methodologies 
for determining a student's English proficiency vary. States use 
different screening instruments, and even within a state, there could 
be variation in the instruments used. In addition, some states and 
school districts may implement other methods--such as subjective 
teacher observation reports--in determining a student's language 
proficiency. Regardless of how states determine which students have 
limited English proficiency and need language services, they are 
required to offer services and assess the progress of all such 
students. 

Figure 1: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (State 
Data): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of state-provided data. Art Explosion (images). 

[A] A home language survey is a survey asking questions about what 
language the child speaks (other than English) at home. 

[End of figure] 

The ACS data used by Education to represent the number of students with 
limited English proficiency are based on a sample of the population. In 
particular, these data represent the number of persons ages 5 to 21 who 
speak a language other than English in the home and who report speaking 
English less than "very well" (see fig. 2). The responses to the 
question regarding how well members of the respondent's household speak 
English are subjective. The Census Bureau has found some inconsistency 
with these responses in its re-interview process, which is a data 
quality check.[Footnote 15] 

Figure 2: Process for Determining English Proficiency Status (ACS): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of ACS information. 

[End of figure] 

It is not known how accurately the ACS data reflect the population of 
students with limited English proficiency. According to Census 
officials, no research exists on the linkage between the responses to 
the ACS English ability questions and the identification of students 
with limited English proficiency.[Footnote 16] Because ACS data are 
used as the basis of Title III-funding distribution, it is critical to 
understand how accurately these data represent the population and 
whether they do so uniformly across states. 

In addition, ACS data for 2003 and 2004 show some large fluctuations in 
the number of respondents who speak English less than very well. In 
part, these fluctuations can be attributed to the partial 
implementation of the ACS in these 2 years.[Footnote 17] The full 
implementation of the ACS occurred in 2005, and the data on English 
ability were not yet available at the time of our review. Our analysis 
of the 2003 and 2004 ACS data that Education used as the basis of Title 
III funding showed that 13 states had increases of 10 percent or more 
in this population, while 20 states and the District of Columbia had 
decreases of 10 percent or more from the prior year. 

Table 2: Volatility in ACS Data: 

State Totals without Puerto Rico; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 3,493,118; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 3,942,395; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 3,792,910; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 4.1%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -149,485; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -3.8%. 

Totals with Puerto Rico; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 4,102,851; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 4,709,128; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 4,559,643; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 4.7%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -149,485; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -3.2%. 

Alabama; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 12,187; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 15,225; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 14,970; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 7.7%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -255; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -1.7%. 

Alaska; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 6,126; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 5,500; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 5,090; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -3.5%; 
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): -410; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -7.5%. 

Arizona; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 108,738; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 117,530; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 101,140; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 2.6%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -16,390; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -14.0%. 

Arkansas; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 11,660; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 13,635; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 21,800; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 5.4%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 8,165; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 59.9%. 

California; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 1,111,387; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 1,050,180; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 1,075,825; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -1.9%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 25,645; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 2.4%. 

Colorado; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 45,866; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 66,865; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 60,430; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 13.4%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -6,435; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -9.6%. 

Connecticut; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 31,705; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 28,080; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 33,020; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -4.0%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 4,940; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 17.6%. 

Delaware; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 4,877; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 6,030; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 7,015; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 7.3%; 
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): 985; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 16.3%. 

District of Columbia; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 4,509; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 5,835; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 2,950; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 9.0%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -2,885; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -49.4%. 

Florida; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 179,109; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 231,710; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 235,830; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 9.0%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 4,120; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 1.8%. 

Georgia; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 62,289; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 93,155; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 78,495; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 14.4%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -14,660; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -15.7%. 

Hawaii; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 13,585; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 10,565; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 12,945; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -8.0%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 2,380; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 22.5%. 

Idaho; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 8,812; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 12,485; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 12,550; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 12.3%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 65; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 0.5%. 

Illinois; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 165,553; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 176,630; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 182,210; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 2.2%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 5,580; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 3.2%. 

Indiana; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 26,562; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 57,500; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 70,380; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 29.4%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 12,880; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 22.4%. 

Iowa; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 13,632; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 17,370; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 12,900; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.4%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -4,470; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -25.7%. 

Kansas; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 17,992; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 15,965; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 17,160; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -3.9%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 1,195; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 7.5%. 

Kentucky; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 10,896; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 16,565; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 17,580; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 15.0%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 1,015; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 6.1%. 

Louisiana; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 15,265; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 18,740; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 15,235; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 7.1%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -3,505; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -18.7%. 

Maine; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 2,503; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 2,590; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 3,865; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 1.2%; 
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): 1,275; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 49.2%. 

Maryland; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 34,318; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 38,640; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 39,900; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 4.0%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 1,260; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 3.3%. 

Massachusetts; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 60,631; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 77,685; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 59,785; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.6%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -17,900; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 23.0%. 

Michigan; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 48,542; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 72,320; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 49,255; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 14.2%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -23,065; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -31.9%. 

Minnesota; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 37,703; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 44,530; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 48,180; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 5.7%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 3650; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 8.2%. 

Mississippi; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 7,168; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 7,410; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 4,775; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 1.1%; 
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): -2,635; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -35.6%. 

Missouri; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 19,607; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 28,600; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 19,950; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 13.4%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -8,650; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -30.24%. 

Montana; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 2,673; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 1,515; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 2,920; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -17.2%; 
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): 1,405; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 92.7%. 

Nebraska; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 11,013; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 14,100; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 12,460; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.6%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -1,640; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -11.6%. 

Nevada; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 34,337; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 48,730; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 58,010; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 12.4%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 9,280; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 19.0%. 

New Hampshire; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 3,443; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 5,905; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 5,195; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 19.7%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -710; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 12.0%. 

New Jersey; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 99,993; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 121,360; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 100,680; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 6.7%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -20,680; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -17.0%. 

New Mexico; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 38,436; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 40,205; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 27,690; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 1.5%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -12,,515; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -31.1%. 

New York; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 303,212; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 388,795; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 332,065; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.6%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -56730; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -14.6%. 

North Carolina; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 50,797; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 65,600; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 73,710; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.9%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 8,110; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 12.4%. 

North Dakota; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 1,512; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 2,190; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 2,095; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 13.1%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -95; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 4.3%. 

Ohio; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 43,675; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 42,860; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 48,885; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -0.6%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 6,025; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 14.1%. 

Oklahoma; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 18,067; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 31,570; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 20,575; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 20.5%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -10,995; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -34.8%. 

Oregon; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 34,654; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 37,755; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 43,100; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 2.9%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 5,345; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 14.2%. 

Pennsylvania; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 63,638; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 61,600; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 75,935; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: - 1.1%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 14,335; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 23.3%. 

Rhode Island; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 12,170; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 17,865; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 11,875; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 13.7%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -5,990; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 
-33.5%. 

South Carolina; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 14,915; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 16,155; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 15,525; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 2.7%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -630; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 3.9%. 

South Dakota; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 3,590; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 4,055; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 2,855; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 4.1%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -1200; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 29.6%. 

Tennessee; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 18,069; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 25,595; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 33,180; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 12.3%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 7,585; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 29.6%. 

Texas; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 516,819; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 603,105; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 545,330; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 5.3%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -57,775; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -9.6%. 

Utah; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 18,171; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 19,215; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 20,590; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 1.9%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 1,375; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 7.2%. 

Vermont; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 1,435; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 1,585; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 1,140; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 3.4%; 
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): -445; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -28.1%. 

Virginia; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 43,377; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 53,935; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 52,640; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 7.5%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -1,295; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -2.4%. 

Washington; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 59,677; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 58,840; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 59,350; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -0.5%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): 510; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 0.9%. 

West Virginia; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 2,495; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 2,465; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 2,320; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: -0.4%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -145; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: - 5.9%. 

Wisconsin; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 34,285; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 44,275; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 39,665; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 8.9%; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): -4,610; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: -10.4%. 

Wyoming; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 1,443; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 1,780; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: 1,885; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: 7.3%; 
Difference in Counts (2003- 2004): 105; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: 5.9%. 

Puerto Rico; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): Census 2000: 609,733; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2003: 766,733; 
Number of students with limited English proficiency (speak English less 
than "very well"): ACS 2004: [Empty]; 
Annual rate of "growth" from 2000 to 2003: [Empty]; 
Difference in Counts (2003-2004): [Empty]; 
Annual rate of growth from 2003 to 2004: Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of Census and ACS data. 

[End of table] 

Further, seven of the states that showed decreases of 10 percent or 
more in the ACS 2003-04 data representing students with limited English 
proficiency also showed an increase in the number of recent immigrants 
for this period. Many of these immigrants were likely to have limited 
English proficiency. For example, according to ACS data that Education 
uses to represent students with limited English proficiency, Rhode 
Island had a decrease of 33.5 percent in this population at the same 
time that it had an increase (about 33 percent) in the number of recent 
immigrants (age 3 to 21).[Footnote 18] 

Education used the most current ACS data available to distribute Title 
III funding across the states, consequently the fluctuations in the ACS 
data were reflected in fluctuations in funding. In so far as these data 
reflect population changes, such fluctuations are to be expected. 
However, if the fluctuations were due to errors resulting from the 
sample size for the 2003 and 2004 ACS data, then they may have resulted 
in some states receiving a greater (or lesser) proportion of the funds 
than their population of students with limited English proficiency and 
recently immigrated children and youth would warrant.[Footnote 19] 
Table 3 shows Education's distribution of Title III funds across states 
for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

Table 3: Allocation of Title III Funds for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006: 

Totals with Puerto Rico; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 579,164,605; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 617,176,837; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 6.56%. 

Alabama; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,969,385; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,174,723; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 6.92%. 

Alaska; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 835,169; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 951,490; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 13.93%. 

Arizona; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 16,053,667; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 17,374,634; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 8.23%. 

Arkansas; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 1,986,077; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,612,909; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 81.91%. 

California; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 149,565,827; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 166,955,253; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 11.63%. 

Colorado; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 9,947,707; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 9,613,097; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 3.36%. 

Connecticut; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 4,440,248; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 5,571,146; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 25.47%. 

Delaware; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 876,486; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 1,212,964; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 38.39%. 

Florida; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 38,999,401; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 42,709,671; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 9.51%. 

Georgia; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 13,281,802; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 13,188,888; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 0.70%. 

Hawaii; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 1,645,216; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,298,533; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 39.71%. 

Idaho; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,107,363; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,030,270; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -3.66%. 

Illinois; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 24,732,083; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 28,836,450; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 16.60%. 

Indiana; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 7,644,463; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 10,667,335; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 39.54%. 

Iowa; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,907,230; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,020,724; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -30.49%. 

Kansas; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,417,540; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,740,852; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 13.37%. 

Kentucky; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,404,457; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,118,830; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 29.71%. 

Louisiana; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 3,317,197; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,346,119; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 29.27%. 

Maine; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 621,027; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 24.21%. 

Maryland; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 6,654,183; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 7,437,226; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 11.77%. 

Massachusetts; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 11,258,663; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 9,855,919; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 12.46%. 

Michigan; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 11,540,302; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 8,594,099; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 25.53%. 

Minnesota; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 6,595,273; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 7,098,282; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 7.63%. 

Mississippi; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 1,017,471; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 742,851; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -26.99%. 

Missouri; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 4,538,410; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,100,690; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 31.68%. 

Montana; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 0.00%. 

Nebraska; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,143,231; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,130,605; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 0.59%. 

Nevada; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 6,865,410; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 8,673,706; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 26.34%. 

New Hampshire; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 1,056,420; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 823,886; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -22.01%. 

New Jersey; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 20,186,729; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 16,783,993; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 16.86%. 

New Mexico; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 5,347,129; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 4,051,960; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 24.22%. 

New York; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 53,923,317; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 53,526,957; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 0.74%. 

North Carolina; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 9,979,375; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 12,582,872; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 26.09%. 

North Dakota; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 0.00%. 

Ohio; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 6,567,211; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 8,027,863; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 22.24%. 

Oklahoma; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 4,869,319; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,843,474; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 21.07%. 

Oregon; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 5,300,358; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 6,888,009; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 29.95%. 

Pennsylvania; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 8,982,966; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 11,458,626; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 27.56%. 

Rhode Island; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,375,164; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 1,950,367; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 17.88%. 

South Carolina; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,588,131; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 2,502,240; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 3.32%. 

South Dakota; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 515,986; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -3.10%. 

Tennessee; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 4,546,936; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 5,523,057; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 21.47%. 

Texas; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 82,422,240; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 85,865,561; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 4.18%. 

Utah; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 2,888,015; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 3,652,520; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 26.47%. 

Vermont; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 0.00%. 

Virginia; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 9,222,809; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 9,823,062; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 6.51%. 

Washington; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 8,547,438; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 10,265,825; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 20.10%. 

West Virginia; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 610,998; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: -18.17%. 

Wisconsin; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 6,171,980; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 6,258,643; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 1.40%. 

Wyoming; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 500,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: 0.00%. 

District of Columbia; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2005 (Dollars): 922,000; 
Title III Allocations to states: FY 2006 (Dollars): 583,745; 
Title III Allocations to states: Percentage Difference: - 36.69%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

Note: States studied in bold. 

[End of table] 

In our 12 study states, we found differences between the state-reported 
number of students identified as having limited English proficiency and 
the ACS data that Education uses to represent this population of 
students (see fig. 3). In 6 states, the 2004 ACS number was greater 
than the state's count (for school year 2004-05), while in the other 6 
states the ACS number was less than the corresponding state 
count.[Footnote 20] For example, while California reported having about 
1.6 million students with limited English proficiency in the 2004-05 
school year, ACS estimates of the population of persons ages 5 to 21 
who speak a language other than English in the home and speak English 
less than "very well" was less than 1.1 million. This represents a 
difference of almost 50 percent. The difference in New York for that 
school year was also large--New York reported about 204,000 students 
with limited English proficiency--and the ACS number used by Education 
was about 332,000, a difference of almost 40 percent for the same 
school year (see fig. 3). 

Figure 3: Percentage Differences between School Year 2004-05 State- 
Reported Data and 2004 ACS Data in 12 Study States: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of state and ACS data. 

Note: GAO collected these state data because, at the time of our 
review, Education had not completed its review of the reasonableness of 
the Consolidated State Performance Report data on the number of 
students with limited English proficiency that was being done to 
provide reliable data for input into Education's new national data 
system. 

[End of figure] 

Education used ACS data for the number of immigrant children and youth 
for fiscal years 2005 and 2006; however, for fiscal years 2002-2004, 
Education relied on state-reported counts of the number of immigrant 
children and youth. With regard to data states collect on the number of 
children and youth who are recent immigrants, state officials expressed 
a lack of confidence in these data. State officials in some of the 12 
study states told us that these data were not very reliable because 
school and school district officials did not ask about immigration 
status directly. Some state and school district officials told us that 
in order to determine whether a student should be classified as a 
recent immigrant, they relied on information such as place of birth and 
the student's date of entry into the school system. Officials in one 
state told us that in the absence of prior school documentation, they 
made the assumption that if a student was born outside the U.S. and 
entered the state's school system within the last 3 years, then the 
student was a recent immigrant. See table 4 for more information about 
the characteristics of state-collected data and ACS data pertaining to 
children and youth who are recent immigrants. 

Table 4: Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Immigrant 
Children and Youth: 

Feature: Measures provided; 
ACS data on immigrant children and youth[A]: Number of foreign-born 
persons ages 3 to21 who arrived in the United States within the 3 years 
prior to the survey; 
State-collected data on immigrant children and youth[B]: Number of 
students in grades K-12 identified as recent immigrants. 

Feature: How it is measured; 
ACS data on immigrant children and youth[A]: Self report (sample of 
population); 
State-collected data on immigrant children and youth[B]: States make 
determinations based on student records or other information. Some 
states told us that they are not able to directly ask students 
questions related to their immigration status. 

Feature: Timing; 
ACS data on immigrant children and youth[A]: Annual average of monthly 
sample; 
State-collected data on immigrant children and youth[B]: Varies. 

Feature: Purpose; 
ACS data on immigrant children and youth[A]: To comply with Immigration 
Nationality Act and Public Health Service Act requirements; To provide 
data to set and evaluate immigration policies and laws; 
State-collected data on immigrant children and youth[B]: To comply with 
the NCLBA requirement to assess progress of all limited English 
proficient children, including immigrant children and youth, to attain 
English proficiency. 

Feature: Education's role in data collection; 
ACS data on immigrant children and youth[A]: Work with Census to make 
sure appropriate questions are included; Can propose new questions, if 
necessary; 
State-collected data on immigrant children and youth[B]: Education 
collects this number from the states in the Consolidated State 
Performance Reports. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from Census, Education, and 12 
study states. 

[A] This column refers to data obtained by Education from ACS, but ACS 
collects additional data. 

[B] Some states may have data available for children prior to 
kindergarten. 

[End of table] 

The ACS data on the number of children and youth who are recent 
immigrants represent the number of foreign-born persons ages 3 to 21 
who came to the United States within the 3 years prior to the survey. 
Similar to the ACS data that Education used to represent students with 
limited English proficiency, these data are also based on self reports. 
However, the ACS responses are more objective (e.g., the date of entry 
into the United States) and therefore may be more consistent than the 
responses to the English ability questions. 

Some States Could Receive More Funding While Others Could Receive Less 
Depending on Which Data Source Education Uses: 

Education's choice to use one data set over the other has implications 
for the amount of funding states receive because the data sources 
specified in NCLBA measure different populations in different ways. We 
simulated the distribution of funds across our 12 study states, using 
ACS data and data representing the number of students with limited 
English proficiency reported to us by state officials. We used the 
number of students with limited English proficiency identified by 
states, rather than the number of these students assessed annually for 
their English proficiency because state-reported data on the number of 
students assessed for school years 2003-04 or 2004-05 were not 
available for all the 12 study states. Throughout the simulation, we 
used ACS data representing the number of immigrant children and youth. 
Based on our simulation, we found that in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 5 
of the 12 study states--Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, and 
Washington--would have received more funding and the other 7 study 
states would have received less (see figs. 4 and 5). 

Figure 4: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based 
on a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2005): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of ACS and state-reported data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 5: Distribution of Title III Funds across 12 Study States Based 
on a Simulation Using ACS and State-Reported Data (Fiscal Year 2006): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of ACS and state-reported data. 

[End of figure] 

Under NCLBA, Federal Funding for Students with Limited English 
Proficiency and Immigrant Children and Youth Has Increased, and More 
School Districts Are Receiving Funds: 

Federal funds for students with limited English proficiency and 
immigrant children and youth increased significantly from fiscal year 
2001--the year prior to the enactment of the NCLBA--to fiscal year 
2006. In addition to the increase in funding to the states, many more 
school districts received funds under the Title III formula grant 
program. 

Funding for Students with Limited English Proficiency and Immigrant 
Students Increased Significantly under Title III from Title VII Levels: 

Federal funding for students with limited English proficiency and 
immigrant children and youth increased significantly from fiscal year 
2001 (the year prior to the enactment of NCLBA) to fiscal year 2002 
when Congress first authorized Education to distribute funds to states 
under Title III. In fiscal year 2001 states, schools, school districts, 
and universities received almost all of the $446 million dollars 
appropriated for Title VII to educate students with limited English 
proficiency, including immigrant students. Congress appropriated over 
$650 million for this purpose in fiscal year 2002. Annual 
appropriations remained between $650 million and $685 million in fiscal 
years 2003-06 (see fig. 6). 

Figure 6: Appropriations for Programs to Support Students with Limited 
English Proficiency Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: U.S. Department of Education data. 

[End of figure] 

Under NCLBA, 37 states received an increase in funding to support 
students with limited English proficiency and immigrant children and 
youth in fiscal year 2006,[Footnote 21] compared to funding in fiscal 
year 2001 under Title VII. Education provided about 93 percent (more 
than $600 million) of funds to support students with limited English 
proficiency and immigrant children and youth to states based on the 
Title III formula for funding distribution in fiscal year 2006. The 
remainder funded other Title III programs, including professional 
development grants (5.4%) and Native American and Alaskan Native grants 
(1.2%). 

In fiscal year 2001, Education distributed 41.2 percent of the $432 
million[Footnote 22] of Title VII funds provided to states in the form 
of discretionary grants to schools, school districts, and state 
education agencies to support the education of students with limited 
English proficiency, and 22.5 percent for professional development of 
teachers and others associated with the education of these students. 
Education allocated (34.4%) to states to support the education of 
immigrant students under the Emergency Immigrant program and the 
remaining 1.9 percent to state educational agencies for program 
administration and to provide technical assistance to school districts. 
(See fig. 7 for distribution of Title VII funds in total and Title III 
funds by program for fiscal years 2001-06.) 

Figure 7: Distribution of Title VII and Title III Funds Provided to 
States in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: U.S. Department of Education data. 

[End of figure] 

The percentage of grant funding specified for professional development 
decreased from 22.5 percent under Title VII in fiscal year 2001 to 
about 5.4 percent under Title III in fiscal year 2006. However, 
Education officials told us that states and school districts are 
required to use a portion of the Title III formula grant funding they 
receive to provide professional development for teachers and other 
staff even though the level of funds is not specified in the law. As a 
result, officials believe that more funds are being spent for 
professional development under Title III than under Title VII. 

The percentage of funding provided for programs specifically for 
immigrant students was higher under Title VII than under Title III. 
Under Title VII, Education distributed about 34 percent of fiscal year 
2001 funding to states based on the number of immigrant students in the 
state. In contrast, 20 percent of the Title III formula grant funds is 
distributed to states on the basis of their relative number of 
immigrant students. Upon receiving Title III grants, states are to 
reserve up to 15 percent of their formula grants to award subgrants to 
school districts within the state with significant increases in school 
enrollment of immigrant children and youth. Officials in our study 
states told us that the percentage of funds they reserved specifically 
for providing enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant 
children and youth ranged from 0 to15 percent, and varied in some 
states from year to year. For example, one state's officials noted that 
the percentage varied from 8 percent in fiscal year 2003 to none in 
fiscal year 2005. Officials in our study states generally explained 
that they distributed Title III funds reserved for this purpose to 
school districts with a significant increase in immigrant students over 
the previous 2 years. For example, another state official stated that 
to receive these funds, school districts must have an increase of 
either 3 percent or 50 students from the average of the 2 previous 
years, whichever is less, and must have a minimum of 10 immigrant 
students. 

More School Districts Received Funds for Students with Limited English 
Proficiency under Title III Formula-Based Funding Than under the Title 
VII Discretionary Grants: 

The number of school districts receiving federal funding for students 
with limited English proficiency has increased under Title III compared 
to under Title VII. For example, in three of our study states 
(California, Texas, and Illinois) more than 1,900 school districts 
received funding for students with limited English proficiency under 
Title III in school year 2003-04 compared to about 500 school districts 
(including districts in which schools were awarded Title VII grants 
directly) receiving such funding under Title VII. Further, fewer 
schools in a district receiving Title VII funds may have actually 
benefited from these funds. For example, officials in two districts 
noted that under Title III all schools in the districts received some 
funds to support their students with limited English proficiency. In 
contrast, these officials told us that prior to NCLBA, Title VII 
discretionary grants were targeted to some schools in their districts 
while other schools with students with limited English proficiency 
received no Title VII funds. Education officials estimated that Title 
III funds are now being used to support 80 percent of the students with 
limited English proficiency in schools.[Footnote 23] 

States and School Districts Used Title III Funds to Support Programs 
for Students with Limited English Proficiency, but Some Cited 
Challenges Recruiting Highly Qualified Staff: 

States and school districts reported using Title III funds to support a 
variety of programs and activities for students with limited English 
proficiency, ranging from various types of language instruction 
programs to professional development. With regard to challenges in 
implementing effective programs, officials we interviewed in 5 study 
states and 8 school districts reported difficulty recruiting qualified 
staff. 

Title III Funds Supported Various Programs and Activities, Including 
Language Instruction and Professional Development: 

Nationwide, states and school districts reported using Title III funds 
to support a variety of programs and activities, including language 
instruction, activities to support immigrant children and youth, 
professional development, and technical assistance. For example, all 
fifty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico reported that 
school districts receiving Title III funds implemented various types of 
language instruction programs, including bilingual and English as a 
second language (ESL) programs, according to 2002-04 state Biennial 
Evaluation Reports to Education.[Footnote 24] Specifically, all states, 
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported using ESL programs, 
which typically involve little or no use of the native language, such 
as sheltered English instruction and pull-out ESL.[Footnote 25] In 
addition, all but 12 states also reported using bilingual programs, 
which may provide instruction in two languages, such as dual language 
programs that are designed to serve both English-proficient and limited 
English proficient students concurrently (see table 5). (See app. II 
for more information regarding language-instruction programs that 
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported using.) 

Table 5: Number of States, Including the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds to Support Different 
Types of Language Instruction Programs: 

Type of language instruction program: ESL;  
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 52. 

ESL: Sheltered English instruction; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 45. 

ESL: Structured English immersion; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 35. 

ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 17. 

ESL: Content-based ESL; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 41. 

ESL: Pull-out ESL; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 44. 

ESL: Other[B]; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 22. 

Type of language instruction program: Bilingual programs;  
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 40. 

Bilingual programs: Dual language; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 30. 

Bilingual programs: Two-way immersion; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 17. 

Bilingual programs: Transitional bilingual; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 31. 

Bilingual programs: Developmental bilingual; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 11. 

Bilingual programs: Heritage language; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 15. 

Bilingual programs: Other[C]; 
Number of states[A] using funds to support program: 7. 

Source: GAO Analysis of 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports to 
the US Department of Education. 

[A] Includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

[B] Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III 
funds implemented other ESL programs; for example, one state reported 
districts used push-in ESL, which it described as providing instruction 
in English and native language support if needed to students with 
limited English proficiency in the regular classroom. Two states noted 
using the inclusion approach, in which the ESL teacher is actually in 
the classroom and helps to facilitate the instruction delivery of the 
regular classroom teacher, with appropriate modifications for students 
with limited English proficiency. 

[C] Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III 
funds implemented other bilingual programs; for example, one state 
noted using foreign language immersion, which it described as a 
bilingual program in which students with limited English proficiency 
are taught primarily or exclusively through sheltered instruction or a 
second language, later combined with native language classes. 

[End of table] 

Forty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported 
that school districts used Title III funds designated to support 
activities for immigrant children and youth for programs such as parent 
outreach, tutorials, mentoring, and identifying and acquiring 
instructional materials. For example, officials in one state noted that 
many school districts used these funds to expand activities designed 
for all students with limited English proficiency, while other 
districts used them to meet the unique needs of immigrant students not 
addressed through other programs, such as providing counseling for 
traumatized refugee students. Officials in another state noted that 
school districts commonly used these funds to provide newcomer centers 
that provided educational and other services to recent immigrants and 
their parents. Funds were also used to provide ESL classes before and 
after school for recent immigrant students as well as ESL classes, 
literacy classes, and computer classes for their parents. 

States also reported that Title III funds supported professional 
development activities. Specifically, all states, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported that school districts used Title III 
funds to conduct professional development activities for teachers or 
other personnel, such as workshops or seminars on the administration 
and interpretation of English language proficiency assessments or on 
various teaching strategies for students with limited English 
proficiency. In addition, 40 states reported reserving a portion of 
state-level funds[Footnote 26] to provide professional development to 
assist teachers and other personnel in meeting state and local 
certification, endorsement and licensing requirements for teaching 
these students. For example, one state reported offering a seminar once 
per year that provided professional development hours that participants 
could use to meet state certification or endorsement requirements, and 
another state noted that it reimbursed teachers for tuition for courses 
that led to ESL endorsement. 

In addition, 49[Footnote 27] states, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico reported reserving state-level funds for other activities, 
including providing technical assistance, planning, and administration 
(table 6). All 12 study states reported reserving state-level funds. 
While all study states reported reserving state-level funds for 
administration--including salaries for Title III staff--as well as for 
professional development and technical assistance, the majority of 
study states also reserved these funds for other activities, such as to 
develop guidance on English language proficiency standards. 

Table 6: Number of States, including the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico, That Reported Using Title III Funds for Various State- 
Level Activities: 

Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of 
the following areas;  
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 51. 

Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of 
the following areas: identifying or developing and implementing 
measures of English language proficiency; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 50. 

Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of 
the following areas: helping students with limited English proficiency 
meet standards expected of all students; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 48. 

Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of 
the following areas: implementing English language instructional 
programs based on scientific research; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 47. 

Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of 
the following areas: promoting parental and community participation in 
programs for students with limited English proficiency; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 44. 

Type of state-level activity: Technical assistance in one or more of 
the following areas: other areas (such as strategic planning); 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 12. 

Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 51. 

Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities: planning; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 40. 

Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities: 
administration; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 40. 

Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities: 
professional development for certification/licensing requirements; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 40. 

Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities: interagency 
cooperation; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 38. 

Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities: evaluation; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 36. 

Type of state-level activity: Other state-level activities: other; 
Number of states[A] reserving state-level funds for activity: 7. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2002-04 state Biennial Evaluation Reports to 
the U.S. Department of Education. 

[A] States include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

[End of table] 

Similarly, in interviews with officials in 11 school districts and 
schools[Footnote 28] we visited in 6 of our study states, we found that 
Title III funds were used to support a variety of programs and 
activities for these students. Most districts we visited reported using 
Title III funds for the instructional program and materials as well as 
for professional development and assessments. In addition, districts 
used these funds to provide services, such as after-school tutoring or 
summer school programs, and for parent outreach activities, such as 
adult ESL classes or workshops on how to help your child succeed in 
school. 

For example, in one school district, we visited a high school that used 
Title III funds for two English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) 
teachers and one teacher aide who worked with all of the school's 
limited English proficient students. School officials also said that 
the county used Title III funds for a resource teacher who visited 
their school on a weekly basis to instruct teachers in ESOL strategies. 
The resource teacher also provided individualized pull-out instruction. 
This school also purchased computer-based learning software with Title 
III funds. 

NCLBA requires school districts to use a portion of Title III funds for 
language instruction programs for students with limited English 
proficiency and to provide professional development to teachers or 
other personnel. However, Education found issues related to these 
required uses during Title III-monitoring visits to seven states. For 
example, Education found that one of two districts visited in one state 
used all its Title III funds for teacher salaries and benefits. 
Education found that this issue arose due to a lack of familiarity with 
federal requirements and required the state to develop a corrective 
action plan. However, in the remaining 14 states monitored to date, 
Education did not find any issues related to the required uses. 

Some States and School Districts Cited Challenges in Recruiting Highly 
Qualified Staff: 

Officials in five study states and in 8 school districts in the six 
states we visited reported that difficulty hiring qualified teachers or 
other personnel that meet NCLBA requirements presented challenges to 
implementing effective programs. NCLBA requires public school teachers 
to be highly qualified in every core academic subject they 
teach[Footnote 29] and increased the level of funding to help states 
and districts implement teacher qualification requirements, including 
activities to help states and districts recruit and retain highly 
qualified teachers. However, officials in one district we visited noted 
that teacher transience in high-needs schools presents challenges 
because schools must continually provide training to new staff on 
strategies for teaching students with limited English proficiency. In 
another district, officials noted a particular challenge in locating 
qualified substitute teachers to work with these students when 
necessary. 

Prior GAO work also found that states and school districts were 
experiencing challenges implementing NCLBA's teacher qualification 
requirements, including difficulties with teacher recruitment and 
retention. While we found that many of the hindrances reported by state 
and district officials could not be addressed by Education, Education 
had identified several steps it would take in its 2002-07 strategic 
plan related to these issues, including supporting professional 
development and encouraging innovative teacher compensation and 
accountability systems. 

Education Provided Oversight and Support to Help States Meet Title III 
Requirements: 

Education's oversight included Title III monitoring visits; twice 
yearly discussions with states on information they provide to 
Education, known as desk audits; and continuous informal monitoring in 
response to questions from states. As part of its oversight effort, 
Education implemented a monitoring program in 2005 to address each 
states' administration of the Title III program. This monitoring effort 
was designed to provide regular, systematic reviews and evaluations of 
how states meet Title III requirements to ensure that they implement 
and administer programs in accordance with the law. Monitoring is 
conducted on a 3-year cycle, and as of September 2006, Education 
officials had monitored and reported on 20 states and the District of 
Columbia. Education officials reported that they plan to visit 17 more 
states in fiscal year 2007. 

As part of the monitoring visits, Education reviews states' and 
districts' implementation of NCLBA requirements, such as data to be 
included in required reports and required district uses of Title III 
funds. Education has found issues relating to a number of these 
requirements. For example, for 4 of the 20 states monitored and the 
District of Columbia, Education had findings related to the data that 
these states submitted in their Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
According to Education, 20 of the 21 monitoring reports had findings, 
and most states have developed corrective action plans to address them. 
Education officials stated that they are reviewing these plans and 
working with states to determine which findings have been appropriately 
addressed and to develop a time frame for resolving remaining findings. 

In addition, Education's program officers perform semiannual reviews of 
states' responses to sections of the Consolidated State Performance 
Report related to Title III and Biennial Evaluation Reports states 
submit to Education along with phone calls to state officials to 
address issues identified. For example, in October 2005 the program 
officers asked states how quickly they got the funding out to school 
districts because this was an area identified as a concern. Finally, 
Education officials explained that they provide informal, ongoing 
monitoring by addressing issues brought up by state officials 
throughout the year. 

Education offered support in a variety of ways to help states meet 
Title III requirements. Education held on-site and phone meetings to 
provide technical assistance to states, such as how to address the 
needs of those students having both limited English proficiency and 
disabilities. Education also held annual conferences focused on 
students with limited English proficiency that included sessions that 
provided information to state Title III directors and others on a 
variety of topics, such as NCLBA policies related to students with 
limited English proficiency and English language proficiency assessment 
issues. Education also held semiannual meetings and training sessions 
with state Title III directors, a nationwide Web cast on English 
language achievement objectives, and also videoconference training 
sessions for some state officials on how to meet Title III 
requirements. The department issued guidance on issues related to 
students with limited English proficiency on its Web site and also 
distributed information through an electronic bulletin board and a 
weekly electronic newsletter focused on students with limited English 
proficiency and through the National Clearinghouse for English Language 
Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs. In addition, 
Education plans to provide assistance to individual states in 
developing appropriate goals for student progress in learning English 
through at least 3 of the 16 regional comprehensive centers the agency 
has contracted with to build state capacity to help school districts 
that are not meeting their adequate yearly progress goals. 

Officials from 5 of the 12 study states reported general satisfaction 
with the guidance, training, and technical assistance Education 
provided. However, one area that officials from seven of the study 
states identified as a challenge was addressing the needs of those 
students having both limited English proficiency and disabilities. 
Although Education issued guidance on including students with both 
limited English proficiency and disabilities in English language 
assessments and English proficiency goals, two states noted that the 
guidance does not specifically address how to serve those students with 
the most significant cognitive disabilities who also have limited 
English proficiency. Education estimates that nationwide about 1 
percent of students have the most significant cognitive disabilities. 
An Education official stated that there is limited research on how to 
address this group of students, but Education is working with states 
and experts to explore the appropriate identification, assessment, 
placement, and interventions for such students. 

In addition, officials in 5 of the 12 study states thought more 
guidance was needed to develop English language proficiency assessments 
that meet NCLBA's requirements. In our July 2006 report we found that 
Education has issued little written guidance on how states are expected 
to assess and track the English proficiency of these students, leaving 
some state officials unclear about Education's expectations.[Footnote 
30] We recommended that Education identify and provide the technical 
support states need to ensure the validity of academic assessments and 
publish additional guidance on requirements for assessing English 
language proficiency. Education agreed with our recommendations and has 
begun to identify the additional technical assistance needs of states 
and ways to provide additional guidance in these areas. 

Conclusions: 

NCLBA was enacted to ensure that all students have the opportunity to 
succeed in school, including meeting state academic content standards 
and language proficiency standards. However, if Education does not use 
the most accurate data as the basis of Title III-funding distribution, 
funds may be misallocated across states. NCLBA specifies that Education 
is to distribute funds based on the more accurate data source--Census' 
ACS data or the number of students with limited English proficiency 
assessed annually. Because Education has not provided states with clear 
instructions on the portions of the Consolidated State Performance 
Report relevant to the collection of state data on the number of 
students with limited English proficiency assessed annually for English 
proficiency, it has been difficult for states to provide the data 
Education needs in order to consider the use of state data as the basis 
of distributing Title III funds. Until Education provides clear 
instructions, states may continue to provide inconsistent data. 

Once Education has provided such instructions and continues to work 
with states to improve data quality, the state data will be more 
reliable and complete. In addition, as Education completes its review 
of state-supplied school-year 2003-04 and 2004-05 data, it will be in a 
better position to consider the relative accuracy of the ACS and state 
data. However, 

without a methodology in place to assess the relative accuracy of these 
data sources, it is unclear how Education will determine which data to 
use as the basis of Title III-funding distribution. This is of 
particular concern, since without such a methodology, it will remain 
unknown how well either of the two data sources captures the population 
of children with limited English proficiency. 

In addition, ACS data have shown volatility--large increases and 
decreases--in the numbers of students with limited English proficiency 
from 2003 to 2004. While some volatility may be related to population 
fluctuations, some is related to the ACS sample size. Consequently, 
states may experience excessive fluctuations in their funding amounts 
from year to year. Some states may continue to see large fluctuations 
in the Title III funding when data based on the fulI ACS sample are 
introduced, when data are based on new annual population estimates are 
incorporated, and when data based on the 2010 Decennial Census become 
available. As a result, states affected by this volatility may be 
unable to plan effectively. 

Recommendations: 

To address the need for reliable and complete state data on the number 
of students with limited English proficiency assessed annually, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Education clarify the instructions on 
the portions of the Consolidated State Performance Report relevant to 
the collection of data on the number of students with limited English 
proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency. 

To strengthen the basis for Education's distribution of Title III 
funds, we recommend that the Secretary of Education develop and 
implement a transparent methodology for determining the relative 
accuracy of the two allowable sources of data, ACS or state data on the 
number of students with limited English proficiency assessed annually, 
for Title III allocations to states. 

To address volatility in annual ACS data, we recommend that as part of 
NCLBA reauthorization, the Secretary should seek authority to use 
statistical methodologies, such as multiyear averages. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 
In a letter, Education agreed with our recommendation regarding the 
need for reliable and complete data on the number of students with 
limited English proficiency assessed annually for English proficiency. 
The department stated that it has addressed this recommendation by 
revising the CSPR data collection form for the 2005-06 school year and 
by proposing additional changes to the 2007 CSPR (Part I) form. 
However, as stated in our report, Education did not provide 
documentation of the proposed changes. Further, it is not clear that 
the changes the department describes would result in complete and 
reliable data on the number of students with English proficiency 
assessed annually for English proficiency. We still recommend that 
Education review and clarify instructions to allow for an unduplicated 
count of students that would meet NCLBA requirements for use as a 
potential data source for funding. Regarding our second recommendation, 
Education agreed that it should develop a methodology to compare the 
relative accuracy of the two data sources, but stated that it should 
wait until the quality of state data improves. However, we encourage 
Education to take steps now to develop a methodology, since the 
department has been taking multiple steps to improve the quality and 
completeness of state data. In this way, Education will be positioned 
to determine which data source is the more accurate when state data has 
sufficiently improved. Finally, Education seemed to agree with our 
recommendation concerning the volatility of ACS data, but commented 
that the department did not have the legal authority to use multiyear 
averages of ACS data as the basis for distributing Title III funds. The 
department suggested that Congress might want to address this issue in 
the NCLBA reauthorization. As a result, we changed the recommendation 
to state that as part of NCLBA reauthorization, Education should seek 
authority to use statistical methodologies, such as multiyear averages, 
to address the volatility of ACS data. 

Education officials also provided technical comments that we 
incorporated into the report where appropriate. Education's written 
comments are reproduced in appendix III. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, 
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We 
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 
the report will be made available at no charge on GAO's Web site at 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any 
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Major contributors are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Cornelia M. Ashby, Director: 
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language 
Instruction: 

The following information was gathered from the National Clearinghouse 
of English Language Acquisition's (NCELA) web site. NCELA identified 
various sources for the program descriptions. 

Table 7: Descriptions of Educational Programs for Language Instruction: 

Type of Program: Bilingual education; 
Description: Bilingual education is an educational program in which two 
languages are used to provide content matter instruction. Some 
bilingual programs use and promote two languages, while in others, 
bilingual children are present, but bilingualism is not fostered in the 
curriculum. 

Type of Program: Dual language program; 
Description: Also known as two- way immersion or two-way bilingual 
education, dual language programs are designed to serve both language 
minority and language majority students concurrently. Two language 
groups are put together and instruction is delivered through both 
languages. For example, in the United States, native English speakers 
might learn Spanish as a foreign language while continuing to develop 
their English literacy skills and Spanish-speaking students with 
limited English proficiency learn English while developing literacy in 
Spanish. 

Type of Program: Two-way immersion; 
Description: See dual language program. 

Type of Program: Transitional bilingual education; 
Description: Transitional bilingual education is an instructional 
program in which subjects are taught through two languages--English and 
the native language of the English language learners--and English is 
taught as a second language. English language skills, grade promotion, 
and graduation requirements are emphasized, and the native language is 
used as a tool to learn content. The primary purpose of these programs 
is to facilitate the student with limited English proficiency's 
transition to an all-English instructional environment while receiving 
academic subject instruction in the native language to the extent 
necessary. As proficiency in English increases, instruction through the 
native language decreases. Transitional bilingual education programs 
vary in the amount of native language instruction provided and the 
duration of the. Transitional bilingual education programs may be early-
exit (in which children move from bilingual education programs to 
English-only classes in the first or second year of schooling) or late-
exit (in which children participate in bilingual instruction for 3 or 
more years of schooling), depending on the amount of time a child may 
spend in the program. 

Type of Program: Developmental bilingual education; 
Description: Developmental bilingual education is a program that 
teaches content through two languages and develops both languages with 
the goal of bilingualism (e.g., the ability to use two languages) and 
biliteracy (e.g., the ability to effectively communicate or understand 
thoughts and ideas through two languages' grammatical systems and 
vocabulary, using their written symbols). 

Type of Program: English as a second language (ESL); 
Description: English as a second language is an educational approach in 
which English language learners are instructed in the use of the 
English language. Their instruction is based on a special curriculum 
that typically involves little or no use of the native language, 
focuses on language (as opposed to content), and is usually taught 
during specific school periods. For the rest of the school day, 
students may be placed in mainstream classrooms, an immersion program, 
or a bilingual education program. Every bilingual education program has 
an English as a second language. 

Type of Program: Heritage language; 
Description: Heritage language refers to the language a person regards 
as their native, home, and/or ancestral language. This covers 
indigenous languages (e.g., Navajo) and in-migrant languages (e.g., 
Spanish in the U.S). 

Type of Program: Sheltered English instruction; 
Description: Sheltered English instruction is an approach used to make 
academic instruction in English understandable to English language 
learners to help them acquire proficiency in English while at the same 
time achieving in content areas. Sheltered English instruction differs 
from English as a second language in that English is not taught as a 
language with a focus on learning the language. Rather, content 
knowledge and skills are the goals. In the sheltered classroom, 
teachers use simplified language, physical activities, visual aids, and 
the environment to teach vocabulary for concept development in 
mathematics, science, social studies, and other subjects. 

Type of Program: Structured English immersion; 
Description: In this program, language minority students receive all of 
their subject matter instruction in English. The teacher uses a 
simplified form of English. Students may use their native language in 
class; however, the teacher uses only English. The goal is to help 
minority language students acquire proficiency in English while at the 
same time achieving in content areas. 

Type of Program: Specially designed academic instruction in English; 
Description: Specially designed academic instruction in English is a 
program of instruction in a subject area, delivered in English, which 
is specially designed to provide students with limited English 
proficiency with access to the curriculum. 

Type of Program: Content-based English as a second language; 
Description: Content-based English as a second language is an approach 
to teaching English as a second language that makes use of 
instructional materials, learning tasks, and classroom techniques from 
academic content areas as the vehicle for developing language, content, 
cognitive, and study skills. English is used as the medium of 
instruction. 

Type of Program: Pull-out English as a second language; 
Description: Pull-out English as a second language is a program in 
which students with limited English proficiency are "pulled out" of 
regular, mainstream classrooms for special instruction in English as a 
second language. 

Source: NCELA, [Hyperlink, 
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/glossary.html] as viewed on 9/22/2006. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Language Instruction Educational Programs Used by States 
in School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04: 

State: Ala; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: X; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: x; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Ak; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: x; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Ark; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: x; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Ariz; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty]; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: x; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Calif; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty]; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: x; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Colo; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Conn; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: x; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Del; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: x; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: D.C; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Fla; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: x; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Ga; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty]; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: x; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Hawaii; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Iowa; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty]; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Id; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Ill; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Structured English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Ind; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Kan; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Ky; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: La; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Mass; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Me; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Md; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Mich; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Minn; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Mo; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Miss; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Mont; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: N.C; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: N.D; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Neb; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: N.H; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: N.J; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: N.M; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Nev; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: N.Y; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]:  x. 

State: Ohio;  
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]:  x. 

State: Okla; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Ore; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]:  [Empty]. 

State: Penn; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]:  [Empty]. 

State: P.R; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Other[B]:  [Empty]. 

State: R.I; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: S.C; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: S.D; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Tenn; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Tex; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Utah; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Vt; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Va; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: Wash; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Wis; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: x; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: x. 

State: W.Va; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: [Empty]; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: 
[Empty]; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: [Empty]; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

State: Wyo; 
Bilingual Programs: Dual language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Two way immersion: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Transitional bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Developmental bilingual: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Heritage language: [Empty]; 
Bilingual Programs: Other[A]: [Empty]; 
ESL: Sheltered English instruction: x; 
ESL: Sheltered English Immersion: x; 
ESL: Special designed academic instruction delivered in English: x; 
ESL: Content-based ESL: x; 
ESL: Pull-out ESL: x; 
ESL: Other[B]: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education 2002-04 Biennial 
Evaluation Report to Congress: 

[A] Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III 
funds implement other bilingual programs; for example, one state noted 
using foreign language immersion, which it described as a bilingual 
program in which students with limited English proficiency are taught 
primarily or exclusively through sheltered instruction or a second 
language, later combined with native language classes. 

[B] Some states reported that school districts receiving Title III 
funds implement other English as a second language programs; for 
example, one state reported districts use push-in ESL, which it 
described as providing instruction in English and native language 
support if needed to students with limited English proficiency in the 
regular classroom. Two states noted using the Inclusion approach, in 
which the English as a second language teacher is actually in the 
classroom and helps to facilitate the instruction delivery of the 
regular classroom teacher, with appropriate modifications for students 
with limited English proficiency. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education: 

United States Department Of Education: 
Office Of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, And 
Academic Achievement For Limited English Proficient Students: 

November 27, 2006: 

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Ashby: 

I am writing in response to your request for comments on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "No Child Left 
Behind: Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis 
for Distributing Title III Funds," (GAO-07-140). I appreciate the 
opportunity to respond to the recommendations made in the report and to 
provide you with additional information on how the U.S. Department of 
Education is supporting the effective distribution and use of the state 
formula grant funds under the provisions of Title Ill of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left 
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). 

The Department takes very seriously the need to collect accurate data 
on limited English proficient (LEP) students and to distribute Title 
III funds in an equitable and efficient manner. The Department believes 
that the nation's LEP students will benefit from the effective 
allocation of Title III state formula funds because these funds provide 
important resources that schools, districts, and states use in serving 
LEP children. We appreciate the specific recommendations made in the 
report and respond to each of them below. 

Your first recommendation concerns the need for reliable and complete 
state data on the number of students with limited English proficiency 
assessed annually. Specifically, you recommend that the Secretary of 
Education clarify the instructions on the portions of the Consolidated 
State Performance Report (CSPR) relevant to the collection of data on 
the number of students with limited English proficiency assessed 
annually for English proficiency. 

The Department has addressed this recommendation in the revised 2006 
CSPR (Part I) data collection form for 2005-2006 data. The Department 
clarified data definitions that had been identified by states in 
previous collections as cumbersome or ambiguous. In an effort to 
increase transparency and to solicit input from Title Ill and state 
data administrators, the Department invited all states to attend 
regional meetings in the spring of 2006 to discuss LEP data collection 
issues. A total of 39 states attended the regional meetings. The 
Department then shared with all states the information collected in 
these meetings. Drawing on this information, we made changes to the 
2006 Title III Biennial Report form and have proposed changes to the 
2007 CSPR (Part I) form. The 2006 Title 111 Biennial Report form is now 
available electronically. The online format, with built-in data checks, 
provides the opportunity for the reports to be pre-populated with data 
previously entered in the CSPR (Part 1) and the Education Data Exchange 
Network (EDEN) report, reducing significantly the burden for states. In 
addition, the automatic migration of data from the CSPR to other 
reports required by Congress creates a consistent data reporting 
system. 

NCLB provides a definition of LEP that will be used for all data 
collection related to LEP students, thus providing stability for states 
in building their data collection systems. Furthermore, revisions to 
data definitions and data collection concerning LEP students have been 
coordinated among the Department's data collection and reporting 
initiatives: EDEN/EDFacts; CSPR; and the Title III Biennial Report. 
Through this effort, the Department has developed a more comprehensive 
approach with targeted questions that will clarify the data elements 
needed to report accurately the LEP enrollment and assessment data to 
Congress. State data submission into the new EDEN system will be 
mandatory starting with the 2006-2007 data collection, providing the 
opportunity for the Department to have a more complete data system, to 
coordinate the data definition and data collection efforts, and to 
eliminate duplication. Most importantly, the Department will have the 
ability to analyze the data and provide feedback to the states on 
funding and other valuable issues related to the achievement of LEP 
students. 

Your second recommendation deals with the basis for the Department's 
distribution of Title III funds. Specifically, you recommend that the 
Secretary of Education develop and implement a methodology for 
determining the relative accuracy of the two allowable sources of data, 
American Community Survey (ACS) and state data on the number of 
students with limited English proficiency assessed annually, for Title 
III allocations to states. 

As indicated in the report, under the Title III legislation, the 
Secretary of Education is required to base the distribution of funds on 
the more accurate of two allowable sources of data on the population of 
children and youth with limited English proficiency and immigrant 
students: the Bureau of the Census' ACS data or state-collected data. 
As the report correctly points out, state data on the number of 
students with limited English proficiency were incomplete and of poor 
quality during the first several years of the new program. Some states 
provided incomplete data and others provided inconsistent data to the 
Department on the number of students with limited English proficiency 
in the CSPR. Differences in how states identify which students have 
limited English proficiency also could affect the data they report to 
the Department and, as the report indicates, could ultimately affect 
the distribution of Title III funds. Though, as the report notes, ACS 
data present challenges as well, the ACS does provide more complete and 
consistent counts of individuals with limited English proficiency. 
Therefore, the decision on which data set to use in making Title III 
state allocations was not difficult. At this time, we do not see a need 
to develop an elaborate methodology to compare the relative accuracy of 
the two data sources. However, in the future, as the quality of the 
state data improves, it will be appropriate to implement a more formal 
methodology, and consistent with this recommendation, we will do so. 

Your third and final recommendation refers to the volatility in annual 
ACS data. Specifically, you recommend that the Secretary consider using 
statistical methodologies, such as the use of multi-year averages, for 
as long as the Department uses the ACS data. 

With regard to the use of multi-year averages, the current law requires 
us to use the most up-to-date data, which we have determined are the 
most recent year's data. The issue of whether multi-year data should be 
used is one that the Congress might want to address in reauthorization. 

As a final note, your report notes several areas in which the 
Department is working to improve the way states, districts, and schools 
use Title III funds to improve the English language and academic 
proficiency of LEP students and recommends several areas where we might 
identify and provide technical support and guidance to states to ensure 
the validity of academic and language proficiency assessments for LEP 
students. Toward that end, in August, Secretary Spellings announced the 
LEP Partnership - an initiative designed to explore and resolve, in 
partnership with the states, many of the English language acquisition, 
academic achievement, assessment, and instructional issues that 
confront our nation's LEP students and the schools and districts they 
attend. The LEP Partnership is providing technical expertise and 
support to state efforts to better address the needs of LEP students. 
The Department is partnering with the National Council of La Raza, the 
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Council of 
Chief State School Officers, the Comprehensive Center on Assessment and 
Accountability, and the National Center on English Language Acquisition 
on this effort. All states are invited to be a part of the initiative. 
The Department intends to disseminate across all states the findings, 
practices, policy recommendations, assessment instruments, and tested 
accommodation practices developed through the Partnership. More 
information on the initiative can be found at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/lep-partnership/index.html]. 

Thank you again for taking the time to research and report on the 
provisions of NCLB related to the accurate distribution of Title III 
funds. The Department values the work that you have done to provide 
rich and insightful analyses about the current status of LEP data and 
the implications for the accurate distribution of the Title III state 
formula grant funds. We will use the findings and recommendations to 
improve our allocations to states and ultimately to improve the quality 
of Title III implementation around the country. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Kathleen Leos: 
Assistant Deputy Secretary and Director: 
Office of English Language Acquisition: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Julianne Hartman Cutts (Analyst-
in-Charge) and Nagla'a El-Hodiri (Senior Economist) managed all aspects 
of this assignment. R. Jerry Aiken, Melinda L. Cordero, and Elisabeth 
Helmer made significant contributions to this report. Tovah Rom 
contributed to writing this report. Jean McSween, Robert Dinkelmeyer, 
and Robert Parker provided key technical support. James Rebbe provided 
legal support. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help 
States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English 
Proficiency, GAO-06-815 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006). 

[2] The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002)) 
and the Improving America's Schools Act (Pub. L. No. 103-382 (1994)) 
amended and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965. 

[3] GAO-06-815. 

[4] The total amount of Title III funding allotted to Puerto Rico is 
not to exceed 0.5 percent of the total amount allotted to all states in 
a fiscal year. 

[5] NCLBA defines immigrant children and youth to mean individuals aged 
3 to 21 who were not born in the United States and who have not been 
attending school in the U.S. for more than 3 full academic years. 
Hereinafter the term "recently immigrated children and youth" will 
refer to this population. 

[6] Under section 1111(b)(7) of NCLBA, all students with limited 
English proficiency are required to be assessed annually for English 
proficiency (across three domains: oral language, reading, and 
writing). Since all students with limited English proficiency are to be 
assessed, the number of those assessed should be reasonably close to 
the number of students identified as having limited English 
proficiency. 

[7] NCLBA directed Education to base the distribution of funding on 
Census data or data submitted by states for the first 2 years after the 
passage of NCLBA. 

[8] The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and 
Language Instruction Educational Programs collects, analyzes, 
synthesizes, and disseminates information about language instruction 
educational programs for children with limited English proficiency. 
(See Hyperlink, http://www.ncela.gwu.edu, downloaded Sept. 22, 2006.) 

[9] Funding is also reserved for continuation awards to recipients who 
received multiple year grants and fellowships under Title VII for the 
complete period of the grant or fellowship. 

[10] Language instruction programs used by districts include both 
English as a Second Language (ESL), an approach that typically involves 
little or no use of the native language, and bilingual education, which 
may use and promote two languages. Appendix I provides additional 
information on different types of ESL and bilingual education programs. 

[11] NCLBA states that this professional development should be designed 
to improve the instruction and assessment of students with limited 
English proficiency and to enhance the ability of teachers to use 
curricula assessment measures and instruction strategies for these 
students. It also states that activities should be of sufficient 
intensity and duration to have a positive and lasting impact on teacher 
performance. 

[12] In fiscal year 2004, Education sought and received authority to 
continue to use Census data beyond the 2-year time frame set forth in 
NCLBA. Education officials told us that the pilot ACS data available 
for the fiscal year 2004 distribution of funds were not suitable to be 
used as the basis of Title III-funding distribution due to limitations 
of the sample size used. 

[13] Education relied on their contractor's analysis of the 
Consolidated State Performance Report data related to students with 
limited English proficiency and thus did not have a state-by-state 
analysis of the number of states that did not provide data on the 
number of students with limited English proficiency who were assessed 
for English proficiency or those states that provided partial data for 
school year 2004-05. 

[14] In such cases the number of students identified as having limited 
English proficiency--which is the number we use in our analyses in this 
report--could be greater than the number of students assessed annually 
for English proficiency. 

[15] See Paula Schneider, Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and 
Evaluation Program, Topic Report No. 12 , TR-12, Content and Data 
Quality in Census 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, D.C.: March 
2004). 

[16] Census officials provided a 1989 study, How Good is How Well, that 
discussed a 1982 study conducted by Education exploring the 
relationship between answering "very well" on the English ability 
questions and performance on a language ability test. The study focused 
on adults (not on students with limited English proficiency). The 
Census study explored the relationships between responses to the 
English ability questions and other factors linked to English usage. We 
were not able to assess the reliability of these studies. 

[17] ACS was not fully funded prior to 2005; the 2003 and 2004 data 
were based on a sample that was approximately one third the size of the 
full sample of 2005. Consequently, the sampling errors associated with 
the smaller sample are larger than they would be with the full sample. 

[18] The 7 states that had at least a 10 percent drop in the ACS number 
Education uses to represent the number of students with limited English 
proficiency and an increase in the number of recent immigrants are: 
Arizona, Georgia, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and 
Wisconsin. 

[19] ACS data will continue to experience some degree of volatility due 
to the introduction of the full household sample size for 2005, changes 
in response rates, changes in annual population controls (which 
determine the annual changes in the population and its 
characteristics), and the incorporation of information from the 2010 
Decennial Census. 

[20] In all but one of the 12 study states, the state data were outside 
the margin of error--that is they fell outside the 90 percent 
confidence interval provided by ACS. Florida's data were within the 
margin of error. 

[21] Fiscal year 2006 is the most recent year for which we have state 
by state Title III funding allocations. 

[22] Of the $446 million appropriated for Title VII in fiscal year 
2001, about $14 million was retained by Education to support the 
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education and other support 
services. 

[23] We did not assess the reliability of this estimate. 

[24] Appendix I provides descriptions of different types of language 
instruction programs. 

[25] Sheltered English instruction and pull-out ESL are both language 
instruction programs in which students with limited English proficiency 
are instructed in English. The sheltered English instruction helps 
students with limited English proficiency become proficient in English 
while at the same time learning academic content. The pull-out approach 
moves students with limited English proficiency out of the regular 
classroom for special instruction in English as a second language. 

[26] NCLBA allows states to reserve up to 5 percent of Title III funds 
for state-level activities. 

[27] Illinois did not complete the relevant checklists in the 2002-04 
Biennial Evaluation Report. However, Illinois described implementing 
certain state-level activities in the response narrative in the 
Biennial. Illinois officials also told us, during our visit, that the 
state reserves state-level funds. 

[28] We visited one school in each of the 11 districts. 

[29] Core subjects include English, reading or language arts, 
mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, 
economics, arts, history, and geography. 

[30] See GAO-06-815 for further information. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: