Bilingual Education: Four Overlapping Programs Could Be
Consolidated (14-MAY-01, GAO-01-657).
In fiscal year 2000, the federal government funded four bilingual
education programs--Program Development and Implementation
Grants, Program Enhancement Projects, Comprehensive School
Grants, and Systemwide Improvement Grants--that award grants to
school districts to serve children with limited English
proficiency. To determine if such programs are designed to
achieve similar outcomes for the same target group and are not
well coordinated, this report reviews (1) how similar the
performance goals and measures, eligibility criteria, and
allowable services are among the four bilingual education
programs, (2) to what extent the different kinds of grants were
made to the same types of schools or school districts and were
used to provide the same services, (3) what is known about these
programs' effectiveness, and (4) whether these programs can be
better coordinated or if opportunities exist for program
coordination and cost savings. GAO found that all four federal
bilingual education programs share the same performance goals and
measures, use similar eligibility criteria, and allow for similar
uses of program funds. In fiscal year 2000, the four bilingual
programs made grants to school districts that shared some
characteristics and provided similar services; however,
individual schools typically did not receive funding from more
than one program. The services provided with program funds are
similar, but are tailored by school districts and schools to meet
local needs. Currently, the effectiveness of the four bilingual
programs on a national level is not known. The authorizing
legislation requires the use of local evaluations to assess
students' progress in meeting state standards. The variation in
local assessment tests complicates the task of providing a
national picture of program effectiveness. Even if the Department
of Education were able to obtain uniform information about local
projects, it faces challenges in trying to isolate the funding
effects of the four bilingual programs from funding effects of
other programs that support students with limited English
proficiency. Finally, these four bilingual programs lend
themselves to consolidation. While cost savings from
consolidation would likely be small, there may be advantages to
consolidation, such as allowing more time for staff to perform
other important activities and reducing the administrative burden
associated with redundant federal programs.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-657
ACCNO: A01002
TITLE: Bilingual Education: Four Overlapping Programs Could Be
Consolidated
DATE: 05/14/2001
SUBJECT: Academic achievement
Bilingual education
Education program evaluation
Educational grants
Redundancy
Centralization
Comprehensive School Grant
Dept. of Education Bilingual Education
Program
Program Development and Implementation
Grant
Department of Education Program
Enhancement Project
Systemwide Improvement Grant
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-657
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental
Affairs, U. S. Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
May 2001 BILINGUAL EDUCATION
Four Overlapping Programs Could Be Consolidated
GAO- 01- 657
Page i GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs Letter 1
Appendix I Bilingual Education Programs Funded With a Single Budget
Appropriation 23
Appendix II Selection Criteria for the Bilingual Education Programs 24
Appendix III Comments From the Department of Education 25
Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 26
Tables
Table 1: Overview of the Four Bilingual Education Programs 12 Table 2: Most
School Districts Received Funding From Only One
Bilingual Education Program in Fiscal Year 2000 16 Table 3: Schedule of
Grant Competitions for the Four Bilingual
Education Programs 19
Figures
Figure 1: Percent Growth in School Enrollment of Students With Limited
English Proficiency Compared to All Students in the United States, 1990- 98
(Relative to School Year 198990) 5 Figure 2: Concentration of Students With
Limited English
Proficiency in the United States, School Year 1997- 98 6 Figure 3: Number of
Students With Limited English Proficiency
Enrolled in Public Schools More Than Doubled in Six States Between School
Years 1992- 93 and 1997- 98 7 Figure 4: Distribution of Bilingual Education
Program Grants to
States, Fiscal Year 2000 15 Contents
Page ii GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs Abbreviations
BEA Bilingual Education Act CBO community- based organization Comprehensive
Comprehensive School Grants Enhancement Program Enhancement Projects IHE
institution of higher education LEA local education agency OBEMLA Office of
Bilingual Education and Minority
Languages Affairs PDI Program Development and Implementation Grants
Systemwide Systemwide Improvement Grants
Page 1 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
May 14, 2001 The Honorable George V. Voinovich Chairman, Senate Subcommittee
on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia Committee
on Governmental Affairs United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman: In fiscal year 2000, the federal government used $163
million to fund four bilingual education programs- Program Development and
Implementation Grants, Program Enhancement Projects, Comprehensive School
Grants, and Systemwide Improvement Grants- that award grants to school
districts to serve children with limited English proficiency. Past GAO work
has highlighted some similarities among the four bilingual education
programs. 1 It has also shown that if such programs are designed to achieve
similar outcomes for the same target group and are not well coordinated, the
potential exists for ineffective service delivery and administrative
inefficiencies.
To better understand whether each of these programs plays a unique role in
assisting children with limited English proficiency, you asked us to
determine (1) how similar the performance goals and measures, eligibility
criteria, and allowable services are among the four bilingual education
programs; (2) the extent to which the different kinds of grants were made to
the same types of schools or school districts and were used to provide the
same services; (3) what is known about these programs? effectiveness; and
(4) if these programs can be better coordinated or if opportunities exist
for program consolidation and cost savings.
To assess the similarities in the performance goals and measures,
eligibility criteria, and services among the four bilingual education
programs, we reviewed relevant legislation, regulations, and agency
documents and interviewed Department of Education (Education) officials. To
establish the extent to which grantees receive funding from
1 Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting
Programs (GAO/ HEHS- 00- 78, Apr. 28, 2000).
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
more than one of the bilingual education programs and what services grantees
actually provide, we reviewed a random sample of the files of grantees
identified as having received funding from more than one of the four
programs in fiscal year 2000. 2 To understand what is known about the
programs? effectiveness, we reviewed evaluation literature and interviewed
federal staff about the existence of national evaluations of the four
bilingual education programs. To explore if opportunities exist for better
coordination or program consolidation and cost savings, we interviewed
federal program staff about such opportunities and spoke with some grantees
who received funding from multiple programs. We conducted our work from
October 2000 to April 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
All four federal bilingual education programs share the same performance
goals and measures, use similar eligibility criteria, and allow for similar
uses of program funds. Though their legislative purposes vary, the overall
goal of these four programs is to help children with limited English
proficiency learn English and meet high academic standards. Local education
agencies (LEAs), typically school districts, are eligible to apply for
funding under the four bilingual education programs; however, only LEAs with
high concentrations of students with limited English proficiency are
eligible to apply for grants from the Comprehensive School Grant and
Systemwide Improvement Grant programs. Funds from the four programs can be
used to provide services in three broad categories: instructional services
and materials, professional staff development for teachers and teacher?s
aides, and family education programs.
In fiscal year 2000, the four bilingual education programs made grants to
school districts that shared some characteristics and provided similar
services; however, individual schools typically did not receive funding from
more than one program. Our review of grantee files indicated that the
majority of students served by the four bilingual education programs
attended elementary schools and spoke Spanish. Although over 50 percent of
grants went to school districts in states with historically high
concentrations of students with limited English proficiency, Education has
begun to award an increasing number of grants to school districts in states
2 We reviewed files of approximately 20 percent of the 386 grantees
receiving funding from more than one of the four bilingual education
programs. This representative sample consisted of grantees receiving funding
in fiscal year 2000, regardless of when the grant was awarded. Results in
Brief
Page 3 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
that until recently had small numbers of such students. The services
provided with program funds are similar, but are tailored by school
districts and schools to meet local needs.
The effectiveness of the four bilingual education programs on a national
level is not known. The authorizing legislation requires the use of local
evaluations to assess students? progress in meeting state standards. These
local evaluations provide important information on the academic achievement
of students receiving services from one of the four bilingual education
programs compared to their English- proficient counterparts. While the
legislation is explicit about the student outcomes to be measured, local
programs choose the assessment test to measure the outcomes. The variation
in local assessment tests complicates the task of providing a national
picture of program effectiveness. Furthermore, many grantees have their own
definitions and measures of key terms such as school retention. One study
prepared for Education found that it was difficult to aggregate data across
programs for these and other reasons, including the variability in the
amount and quality of data reported by school districts. Even if Education
were able to obtain uniform information about local projects, it faces
challenges in trying to isolate the funding effects of the four bilingual
education programs from the funding effects of other programs that support
students with limited English proficiency.
Because all four bilingual education programs share the same goals, target
the same types of children, and provide similar services, these programs
lend themselves to consolidation. Education officials acknowledge that
opportunities for consolidation exist and have already taken some steps to
reduce overlap among the four programs. However, cost savings from
consolidation would likely be small for two reasons. First, if the four
programs continue to receive a single appropriation, which gives Education
the authority to decide which programs to fund at what level, eliminating
one or more programs would not necessarily eliminate the dollars associated
with them. Second, the same 28 staff members who administer these programs
also administer other Education programs and, therefore, eliminating one or
more of the bilingual education programs is unlikely to reduce the staff.
However, there may be advantages to consolidation, such as allowing more
time for staff to perform other important activities like conducting site
visits. Consolidation may also benefit grantees directly by reducing the
administrative burden associated with redundant federal programs. For these
reasons, the Congress may wish to consider consolidating the four bilingual
education programs into one program.
Page 4 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Over the last 2 decades, the number of school- aged children with limited
English proficiency in the nation has grown dramatically, increasing from
less than 1 million in 1980 to more than 3.5 million in 1998. Despite small
rates of growth in the total enrollment of all K- 12 children, the
enrollment of school- aged children with limited English proficiency across
the United States grew exponentially between school years 1989- 90 and 1997-
98 (see fig. 1). While California, Florida, New York, and Texas continue to
have the largest number of children with limited English proficiency (see
fig. 2), other states that previously had small populations of such children
have experienced large increases in recent years. For example, in Alabama,
Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, and Tennessee, the number of
children with limited English proficiency more than doubled between school
years 1992- 93 and 1997- 98 (see fig. 3). Background
Page 5 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Figure 1: Percent Growth in School Enrollment of Students With Limited
English Proficiency Compared to All Students in the United States, 1990- 98
(Relative to School Year 1989- 90)
Source: Department of Education and 1997- 98 data from the National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
All Students
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1997- 98 1996- 97 1995- 96 1994- 95 1993- 94 1992- 93 1991- 92 1990- 91
Percent Growth in School Enrollment School Year
Students With Limited English Proficiency
Page 6 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Figure 2: Concentration of Students With Limited English Proficiency in the
United States, School Year 1997- 98
Source: Data from the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1997-
98.
Public School Enrollment of Students With Limited English Proficiency
<5,000 5,001- 15,000 15,001- 100,000 100,001- 200,000 >200,001 No Data
1,406,166 219,868
243,761 507,262
Page 7 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Figure 3: Number of Students With Limited English Proficiency Enrolled in
Public Schools More Than Doubled in Six States Between School Years 1992- 93
and 1997- 98
Source: Data from the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Students With Limited English Proficiency
0 5,000
10,000 15,000
20,000 25,000
30,000 35,000
Nevada North Carolina Idaho Tennessee Nebraska Alabama
2,332 5,751
2,623 7,396
2,770 8,465
4,616 13,188
8,900 28,709
12,040 30,425
1992- 1993 1997- 1998
Page 8 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
In 1968, the Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act (BEA). The purpose
of the BEA is to educate students with limited English proficiency so that
they can reach the academic standards expected of all students. The 1994
reauthorization of BEA 3 created the four bilingual education grant
programs- Program Development and Implementation Grants (PDI), Program
Enhancement Projects (Enhancement), Comprehensive School Grants
(Comprehensive), and Systemwide Improvement Grants (Systemwide)- to
distribute funds directly to school districts serving children with limited
English proficiency. 4 These are the only federal programs that specifically
target instructional services to children with limited English proficiency.
In addition to the four federally funded bilingual education programs
authorized by the BEA, other federal programs also address the special needs
of these children though they do not exclusively target this population. For
example, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which gave
$8.7 billion in fiscal year 2000 to assist school districts educating
disadvantaged students, is the largest federal program that includes support
for children with limited English proficiency. 5 However, most services for
children with limited English proficiency are funded with local and state-
not federal- dollars.
Education?s Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs
(OBEMLA) administers the four competitive bilingual education grant
programs. The cost of administering these programs is funded through
Education?s program administration account, while funding for the program
grants is included in OBEMLA?s program budget. The bilingual education
programs do not receive separate appropriations from the Congress; rather,
OBEMLA receives a single budget appropriation to fund
3 BEA has been amended several times, most recently in 1994 by the Improving
America?s Schools Act (P. L. 103- 382). 4 Part A of the Bilingual Education
Act is divided into three subparts: Instructional Services (Subpart 1),
Support Services (Subpart 2), and Professional Development (Subpart 3). The
four bilingual education programs discussed in this report are included in
Part A, Subpart 1.
5 See Public Education: Meeting the Needs of Students With Limited English
Proficiency (GAO- 01- 226, Feb. 23, 2001). According to State ESEA Title I
Participation Information for 1996- 97 Summary Report (Washington, D. C.:
Department of Education, Jan. 2000), 17 percent of Title I participants were
classified as students with limited English proficiency. Historical Context
Program Administration and the Grant Competition Process
Page 9 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
programs authorized by the BEA. (See app. I for a listing of all programs
funded by the single budget appropriation.)
During the grant competition cycle (approximately 4 to 6 months long),
application forms are reviewed and scored based on applicants? responses to
the selection criteria (see app. II). 6 The applications for the four
programs are very similar and are organized into two main sections. The
first section requests such information as a proposed summary budget, a
detailed itemization of proposed annual expenses, and student data including
the language groups and number of both limited English and English-
proficient students to be served. The second section, the bulk of the
application, is a narrative in which applicants describe the proposed
project by demonstrating how it meets the selection criteria established by
Education. Although the application forms and the selection criteria for all
four programs are very similar, school districts and schools use the
application to describe projects tailored to their specific local needs.
School districts may submit applications to receive funding from more than
one of the programs.
At the end of the grant competition cycle, Education ranks the applications
and awards funding to grantees. OBEMLA?s management plan contains safeguards
to prevent individual schools from receiving funding from more than one
bilingual education program. In fiscal year 2000, Education funded
approximately 28 percent of the 665 applications it received. According to
OBEMLA staff, the following number of grants were awarded in fiscal year
2000 to school districts to serve children with limited English proficiency:
18 Systemwide grants averaging $551,000 each; 75 Comprehensive grants
averaging $245,300 each; and 92 PDI grants averaging $156,200 each. No
Enhancement grants were awarded in fiscal year 2000. In coming years,
Education plans to award a greater proportion of the grants to schools in
the early stages of developing and implementing new programs.
Congressional interest in the BEA has centered on the appropriate federal
role in meeting the special needs of children with limited English
proficiency. The 107th Congress is considering several bills as it
6 Each program has its own peer review process in which individuals, largely
from outside the federal government, review and score applications. See
Education Discretionary Grants: Awards Process Could Benefit From Additional
Improvements (GAO/ HEHS- 00- 55,
Mar. 30, 2000) for a more detailed description of the peer review process.
Legislative and
Presidential Proposals
Page 10 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
deliberates BEA reauthorization in fiscal year 2001. One bill recommends the
elimination of the four grant programs and another seeks to significantly
increase funding for bilingual education programs and consolidate the four
programs into a single grant program. The President?s budget proposes to
implement changes in bilingual and immigrant education that would
consolidate all currently funded bilingual and immigrant programs, as well
as the Foreign Language Assistance program, into a single flexible
performance- based state grant program.
All four federal bilingual education programs share the same performance
goals and measures, possess similar eligibility criteria, and allow similar
uses of program funds (see table 1). The four programs target students with
limited English proficiency in kindergarten through 12th grade. 7 The
overall objectives of these four programs are to provide bilingual or
special alternative education programs to children with limited English
proficiency and to help such children reach high academic standards. Under
each program, students? achievement is measured biannually to determine if
they have demonstrated continuous progress in oral and written English, as
well as in language arts, reading, and math.
LEAs are eligible to apply for funding under the four bilingual education
programs; however, only LEAs with high concentrations of such students are
eligible to apply for grants from the Comprehensive and Systemwide programs.
LEAs may collaborate on their grant applications with institutions of higher
education, community- based organizations, and state education agencies. All
four programs also permit the use of funds to provide instructional services
and materials, professional staff development for teachers and teacher?s
aides, and family education programs. The PDI and Enhancement programs
require specific uses of funds; the Comprehensive and Systemwide programs
permit funds to be used on services from any of the above broad categories.
Only the Systemwide program specifically authorizes services at the school
district level, such as those associated with grade promotion and graduation
requirements. All school districts and schools receiving funds must
coordinate with other relevant programs and services to meet the full range
of needs of participating students.
7 The PDI and Enhancement grant programs also serve prekindergarten
students. The Four Bilingual
Education Programs Are Similar in Many Important Respects
Page 11 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
The legislative purpose and grant length of the four bilingual education
programs also vary. For example, PDI grants are to be used to develop and
implement new bilingual education programs. According to Education
officials, school districts typically submit applications to the PDI program
if the population they intend to serve is new to a community and the
students are relatively close in age. The purpose of the Enhancement
program, according to the legislation, is to expand existing bilingual
education programs. In practice, however, differences between the PDI and
Enhancement programs have not been apparent to grantees. Education officials
said that the types of programs described in the applications submitted by
some school districts are the same for both the PDI and Enhancement
programs. School districts typically submit applications to the
Comprehensive program if the students they intend to serve are concentrated
in one school but are disbursed throughout several grades. School districts
typically submit applications to the Systemwide program if students with
limited English proficiency of all ages attend schools throughout the
district. Both the PDI and Enhancement programs make what are considered
short- term grants because they provide funding for 2 to 3 years. Both the
Comprehensive and the Systemwide program grants provide funding for 5 years.
Page 12 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Table 1: Overview of the Four Bilingual Education Programs PDI Enhancement
Comprehensive Systemwide Objectives To provide bilingual or special
alternative education programs to children and youth with limited English
proficiency;
to help such children and youth develop proficiency in English and, to the
extent possible, their native language and meet the same challenging state
content standards expected of all children and youth
Performance goals Improve oral or written English proficiency and academic
achievement in language arts, reading, and math of students
served by the BEA Build capacity of schools and school districts to serve
students with limited English proficiency Provide grantees with effective
guidance and technical assistance and identify and disseminate reliable
information on effective practices Improve the quality and quantity of
educational personnel serving children with limited English proficiency
Target population Students with limited English proficiency
Eligible entities LEA
LEA in collaboration with an institution of higher education (IHE),
community- based organization (CBO), or state education agency
LEA LEA in collaboration with an IHE, CBO, or state education agency
LEA LEA in collaboration with an IHE, CBO, or state education agency
LEA LEA in collaboration with an IHE, CBO, or state education agency
An IHE or CBO which has an application approved by the LEA
An IHE or CBO which has an application approved by the LEA
Uses of funds Required
Develop and implement comprehensive preschool, elementary, or secondary
programs coordinated with other relevant programs and services
Provide training to teachers, administrators, and other personnel to improve
instruction and assessment
Required
Provide training to teachers, administrators, and other personnel to improve
instruction and assessment
None required None required May include
Improving the instructional program for children with limited English
proficiency
Compensating personnel who are being or have been trained to provide
services to children with limited English proficiency
May include
Improving the instructional program for children with limited English
proficiency
Compensating personnel who are being or have been trained to provide
services to children with limited English proficiency
May include
Improving the instructional program for children with limited English
proficiency
Compensating personnel who are either being trained or have been trained to
provide services to children with limited English proficiency
May include
Reviewing, restructuring, and upgrading the instructional program for
children with limited English proficiency
Page 13 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
PDI Enhancement Comprehensive Systemwide
Implementing family education programs Implementing family
education programs Implementing family education programs Reviewing,
restructuring,
and upgrading family education programs
Developing student grade promotion and graduation requirements
Reviewing, restructuring, and upgrading student assignment policies and
practices
Reviewing, restructuring, and upgrading personnel policies and practices
(for example, recruitment and certification)
Program purpose (as specified in statute)
To develop and implement new bilingual education or special alternative
instructional programs
To carry out projects to expand or enhance bilingual education or special
alternative instruction
To implement programs to reform, restructure, and upgrade instruction to
students with limited English proficiency in schools with significant
concentrations of these students
To implement, improve, reform, and upgrade bilingual education programs
within school districts with significant concentrations of students with
limited English proficiency
Length of grant 3 years 2 years 5 years 5 years
Source: Center for the Education and Study of Diverse Populations,
Education's Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan, and P. L. 103- 382.
Page 14 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
OBEMLA officials awarded grants to school districts with similar
characteristics that provided similar services; however, individual schools
typically did not receive funding from more than one bilingual education
program. Our review of grantee files confirmed Education officials? estimate
that 80 percent of grants funded projects in elementary schools, and
approximately 70 percent of the children served by the programs spoke
Spanish as their primary language. 8 A majority of grants funded in fiscal
year 2000 went to school districts in states with historically high
concentrations of students with limited English proficiency (see fig. 4).
However, according to agency officials, Education has begun to award an
increasing number of grants to school districts in states that until
recently had small numbers of such students.
8 An estimated 200 other languages are spoken by the remaining students. The
Four Programs
Served Similar Grantees and Funded Comparable Services, but Individual
Schools Typically Did Not Receive Funding From More Than One Program
Page 15 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Figure 4: Distribution of Bilingual Education Program Grants to States,
Fiscal Year 2000
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education database.
Percentage of Program Grants
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Vermont
Pennsylvania Ohio
Nevada Mississippi
Indiana Alabama
Wyoming Virginia
North Carolina Kentucky
Georgia Wisconsin
Utah New Jersey
Kansas Idaho
Iowa District of Columbia
Alaska Nebraska
Louisiana Minnesota
Michigan Hawaii
North Dakota Maine
Connecticut South Dakota
Oregon Washington
Illinois Massachusetts
Colorado Montana
Florida New Mexico
Arizona Texas
Oklahoma New York
California 35.5 12.2 7.7 6.7 5.1 4.1 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0
1.0 .9 .9 .9 .7 .7 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
.1
Page 16 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
According to Education officials, grantees receiving funding under each of
the four programs provided similar services to their students with limited
English proficiency. The services provided with program funds fell within
three broad categories: instructional activities and materials, professional
staff development for teachers and teacher?s aides, and family education
programs. However, the precise nature of the services varied by district and
school. For instance, some school districts chose an English- based
instructional approach to teaching students with limited English
proficiency, while others made more extensive use of the students? native
language (bilingual approach).
Although schools receiving funds were similar in many respects, according to
our file review, there is little evidence to indicate that individual
schools received funding from more than one bilingual education program (see
table 2). Even in instances where school districts received multiple grants,
they were distributed so that individual schools typically did not receive
funding from more than one program. On the basis of our file review and
discussions with grantees and Education officials, we learned that while
large school districts located in New York City and Los Angeles County were
among the proportion (18 percent) of school districts receiving funding from
more than one bilingual education program, individual grants were targeted
to different schools within these large districts. 9
Table 2: Most School Districts Received Funding From Only One Bilingual
Education Program in Fiscal Year 2000
Number of grant programs providing funding Number of school
districts Percentage of school
districts receiving funding
1 grant program 360 82 2 grant programs 54 12 3 grant programs 24 5.5 4
grant programs 2 0. 5
Total 440 100
Note: Percentages include all grants funded in fiscal year 2000, regardless
of when the grants were awarded.
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education database.
9 School districts receiving more than one bilingual education program grant
may have received funding from multiple programs of the same type (for
example, several Comprehensive grants) or of different types (for example,
several Comprehensive grants, a PDI grant, and a Systemwide grant).
Page 17 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
The effectiveness of the four bilingual education programs on a national
level is unknown because locally collected data are not comparable. The BEA
requires local assessments of student outcomes, and leaves the choice of
assessment tests to the local program. Although the legislation does not
address how these evaluations are to be funded, grantees are required to
submit evaluations every 2 years and can- according to Education officials-
use grant funds for that purpose. Grantees use these evaluations to improve
the local program, further define local program goals and objectives, and
measure student outcomes such as academic achievement. To measure student
academic achievement, the legislation specifies that local projects provide
data on whether students with limited English proficiency are achieving
state performance standards. For example, grantees must provide data
comparing the academic achievement and school retention rates of students
with limited English proficiency with those of English- proficient students.
The legislation also requires data on program implementation and the
relationship between activities funded by these programs and those funded by
other sources.
Because school districts use different assessment tests and define terms
differently, student outcome data are not comparable among grantees, or
nationally. While the BEA does not require grantees to use specific
assessment tests, individual states or school districts may have such
requirements. Grantees measure student academic achievement against
different performance standards depending on, for instance, whether the
standards were set at the state level or by a school district. Furthermore,
many grantees have their own definitions and measures of key terms such as
school retention. Education?s guidance states that because of the variation
in how school retention is defined and measured, it is important that each
local program follow its own school, district, or state definition and
measure. One study prepared for Education found that it was difficult to
aggregate data to provide a national picture of program effectiveness for
these reasons, and also because of the variability in the quality and amount
of data reported by school districts. 10 However, Education may be able to
garner some information about how well local bilingual education programs
are meeting program goals by comparing local data with Education?s
performance standards.
10 Overview: Summary of Title VII Biennial Evaluation Reports for FY1995-
FY1997 Projects (Rio Rancho, N. Mex.: Center for the Education and Study of
Diverse Populations, New Mexico Highlands University, 2000). Effectiveness
of
Bilingual Programs on National Level is Unknown
Page 18 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Even if Education were able to obtain uniform data across local programs, it
would still be difficult to isolate the effects of BEA funding. As mentioned
earlier, funding from other federal programs- the largest of which is Title
I- also supports these children. Moreover, state and local funds support
most of the services provided to students with limited English proficiency.
Because services provided to students with limited English proficiency are
funded through multiple federal, state, and local sources, it would be
difficult to isolate the effects of the four bilingual education program
funds from other funding effects. 11
Because all four bilingual education programs share the same goals, target
the same types of children, and provide similar services, these programs
lend themselves to consolidation. Though federal cost savings would likely
be small, program consolidation would allow Education to redirect some of
the resources it uses to manage four separate grant competitions to
accomplish other activities, such as conducting site visits, reviewing and
evaluating specific aspects of a grantee?s activities, and providing
technical assistance. Program consolidation may also reduce applicant burden
associated with multiple federal programs designed to achieve the same
overall objectives.
Education officials believe that consolidating these programs has merit and
have already taken some steps to reduce overlap among the four programs. For
example, because of similarities between the PDI and Enhancement programs
cited by grantees and OBEMLA staff, Education holds grant competitions for
these programs on alternating years (except in fiscal year 1999) (see table
3). Although reducing the number of programs for students with limited
English proficiency requires congressional action, Education already decides
which of the four programs to fund in a particular fiscal year and at what
level to fund them. Given the inefficiencies associated with program
overlap, the Congress may want to consider consolidating the four bilingual
education programs into one program.
11 See Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability,
and Performance Information (GAO/ GGD- 98- 137, June 22, 1998) for a more
detailed discussion of the difficulties associated with isolating the
effects of a single program when a target population receives services
funded at more than one level of government. Consolidation of
Bilingual Education Programs Offers Little Federal Cost Savings but May
Improve Efficiency
Page 19 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Table 3: Schedule of Grant Competitions for the Four Bilingual Education
Programs Years that grant competitions were held Grant program 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000
PDI X XXX Enhancement X XX Comprehensive X XXXXX Systemwide X XXX
Source: GAO analysis of Education?s grantee database.
While opportunities exist for consolidating the four bilingual education
programs, federal cost savings, if any, from this action would likely be
small for two reasons. First, the way programs are funded may limit any
savings. As part of its annual budget request, Education proposes a funding
level (as a single line item) for the four bilingual education programs.
Because congressional appropriations are made as a single line item for the
four programs, Education has the discretion to decide how to distribute the
appropriated funds to the individual programs. Therefore, eliminating one or
more of the programs would not necessarily change the funding level, which
is proposed by Education?s budget request and determined by the Congress.
Second, staff reductions are unlikely, thus limiting cost savings. Because
the same 28 staff members administer all of OBEMLA?s programs (the four
bilingual education programs we examined as well as 10 others), staff
reductions could affect the management of all OBEMLA programs.
Consolidating the four bilingual education programs may provide benefits
other than cost savings to Education. According to OBEMLA officials, a
reduction in the number of applications received- and possibly the number of
grant competitions held- would allow staff to reallocate some of their time
to other important program- related activities. Currently, OBEMLA holds a
grant competition lasting approximately 4 to 6 months for each of the
bilingual education programs awarded in a given year. According to OBEMLA
staff, approximately 10 grant competitions are held for the bilingual
education and other OBEMLA programs each year. This process consumes
significant staff resources. OBEMLA officials also mentioned that some
school districts submit grant applications to more than one bilingual
education program in an effort to increase their chances of receiving
funding from at least one, but OBEMLA does not maintain data on how
widespread this practice is. According to Education officials, reducing the
number of programs would likely decrease the number of grant applications
received because school districts would be less likely to Federal Cost
Savings From
Program Consolidation Would Likely Be Small
Education?s Staff Resources Could Be Redirected as a Result of Program
Consolidation
Page 20 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
submit multiple grant applications. As a result, OBEMLA staff would spend
less time reviewing applications and, possibly, less time conducting grant
competitions.
OBEMLA staff stated that, by spending less time reviewing applications and
conducting grant competitions, they would have more time to effectively
conduct other important activities such as visiting every grantee at least
once during the course of its funding cycle, reviewing and evaluating
specific aspects of a grantee?s activities, and providing technical
assistance. Furthermore, as part of its efforts to provide technical
assistance, Education officials might have more time to identify and
disseminate information on effective practices gathered from grantees that
have been successful in meeting program goals. Education officials also
believe that time saved as a result of consolidation may allow for a greater
emphasis on building collaborations between grantees and the other programs
providing support to children with limited English proficiency.
Consolidation may also directly benefit grantees applying to more than one
of the bilingual education programs by reducing the burden associated with
applying to multiple federal programs designed to achieve the same overall
objectives. Several grantees we interviewed said that the application
process was time consuming. According to the Office of Management and
Budget, each application takes from 80 hours (PDI and Enhancement
applications) to 120 hours (Comprehensive and Systemwide applications) to
complete. Grantees we spoke with estimated that they spent anywhere from 6
days to 6 weeks completing applications. Furthermore, according to Education
officials, grantee applications submitted to the PDI and Enhancement
programs often proposed using the grants to fund the same types of
activities. Given that applications for funding from the four bilingual
education programs we reviewed require extensive time and effort to prepare,
reducing the number of programs may decrease the administrative burden
experienced by school districts applying for multiple program grants.
OBEMLA staff believes that the four bilingual education programs meet two
funding priorities for students with limited English proficiency. The first
priority is to help school districts and schools that have experience
serving students with limited English proficiency, and the second is to help
those with little experience serving such students. At present, the
Comprehensive and Systemwide programs focus on the first priority by meeting
the needs of grantees that are upgrading existing programs, and Program
Consolidation
May Also Reduce Administrative Burden Experienced by Applicants
Education Officials Believe the Four Programs Address Two Priorities
Page 21 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
the PDI and Enhancement programs meet the second priority by awarding grants
to educate new populations of limited English- proficient students.
Education officials recognize that four bilingual education programs are not
necessary to meet the needs of school districts serving students with
limited English proficiency. Education has taken steps to reduce redundancy
by not awarding new grants under all four programs every year. During the 6-
year period between 1995 (when the programs were first funded) and 2000,
Education held grant competitions for all four bilingual education programs
in only 1 year. 12 Staff members acknowledged that given enough flexibility
to meet a variety of funding priorities, they may be able to serve all
grantees with one program.
The four federal bilingual education programs included in this review
overlap in many significant ways, and our current and past work has shown
that overlap can create an environment in which programs do not serve
participants as efficiently as possible. Education officials and some
grantees recognize that fewer than four programs could meet the needs of
schools educating students with limited English proficiency. We believe it
would be possible for a single federal program to address the agency?s
funding priorities if the program has adequate flexibility.
To decrease the overlap caused by four bilingual education programs that
were designed to achieve the same overall objectives, the Congress may want
to consider program consolidation. The Congress could authorize a single
federal program that consolidates all four bilingual education programs into
one but provides Education with the flexibility to meet the varied needs of
school districts serving students with limited English proficiency. Such a
program would focus on grantees with experience educating students with
limited English proficiency as well as those grantees with little experience
in this area.
12 In 1995, 1997, and 2000, Education held competitions for three of the
four programs; in 1996 and 1998, Education held competitions for only two of
the programs. Conclusions
Matter for Congressional Consideration
Page 22 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for
comment and we received written comments, which are included in appendix
III. Since the discussions we had with program staff during our review,
Education has decided that it supports consolidating the four programs into
one, which is consistent with the President?s budget proposal. Thus, we have
revised the report to reflect Education?s position, which also supports the
consolidation of the four programs suggested in our Matter for Congressional
Consideration. However, our review did not address whether the federal
government or states should administer the program, and Education officials
did not discuss this topic with us during our review.
In addition, we received technical comments from Education and incorporated
these comments where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Roderick R. Paige,
Secretary of Education; relevant congressional committees; and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.
Please contact me on (202) 512- 7215 if you or your staff have any questions
about this report. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed
in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours, Marnie S. Shaul Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Issues Agency Comments
Appendix I: Bilingual Education Programs Funded With a Single Budget
Appropriation
Page 23 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Program Development and Implementation Grants (PDI)
Program Enhancement Projects (Enhancement)
Comprehensive School Grants (Comprehensive)
Systemwide Improvement Grants (Systemwide)
Academic Excellence Projects
Career Ladder Program
Emergency Immigrant Education Program
Foreign Language Assistance Program (P. L. 103- 382, Sec. 7203)
Graduate Fellowship Program
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education
Research Grants and Contracts
State Educational Agency Grants
Teachers and Personnel Grants
Training for All Teachers Program Appendix I: Bilingual Education Programs
Funded With a Single Budget Appropriation
Appendix II: Selection Criteria for the Bilingual Education Programs
Page 24 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
During grant competitions, a group of peer reviewers rates applications for
each of the four bilingual education programs using the following selection
criteria. These criteria help reviewers assess the strength of individual
applications. Reviewers assign numerical scores and rank the applications to
determine those that merit grant awards. The selection criteria are similar
across all four programs.
Selection criterion PDI Enhancement Comprehensive Systemwide
Meeting purpose of statute * Extent of need for project * * * * Quality of
project design * * * a * a Quality of project services * * Proficiency in
English and another language ** * * Language skills of personnel ** Project
activities * Quality of project personnel * * * Adequacy of resources * b **
b * Quality of management plan * c ** c * Integration of project funds *
Quality of project evaluation plan ** * * Commitment and capacity building
** d
Source: Federal Register Notices (PDI, Sep. 1, 2000; Enhancement, Jan. 4,
1999; Comprehensive, Sep. 1, 2000; Systemwide, Feb. 8, 2000). a The
Comprehensive program shares three of the six project design- related
selection criteria with the
PDI and Enhancement programs. The criteria for the Systemwide program,
although ordered differently, are very similar. b The PDI and Enhancement
programs share the same four criteria for evaluating the adequacy of
resources. The Comprehensive program criteria are the same as the Systemwide
program criteria, but include only two of the four PDI and Enhancement
program criteria. c The PDI and Enhancement programs specify the same three
criteria for evaluating the adequacy of resources. The Comprehensive program
criteria are the same as the Systemwide program criteria, but include only
two of the four PDI and Enhancement program criteria. d Criteria for the
Systemwide program require that students with limited English proficiency
who are
disabled be served in accordance to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U. S. C. 1400 et seq.).
*Program uses indicated selection criteria.
Appendix II: Selection Criteria for the Bilingual Education Programs
Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Education
Page 25 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Education
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 26 GAO- 01- 657 Multiple Bilingual Education Programs
Karen Whiten, (202) 512- 7291 Suzanne Lofhjelm, (202) 512- 4163
In addition to those named above, the following individuals made important
contributions to this report: Sherri Doughty, Ellen Habenicht, Corinna
Nicolaou, James Rebbe, Jay Smale, and Jim Wright. Appendix IV: GAO Contacts
and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgments
(102011)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013
Orders by visiting:
Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013
Orders by phone:
(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Orders by Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:
Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov
Contact one:
Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***