No Child Left Behind Act: Education Assistance Could Help States 
Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English	 
Proficiency (23-MAR-07, GAO-07-646T).				 
                                                                 
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) focused attention on
the academic achievement of more than 5 million students with	 
limited English proficiency. Obtaining valid test results for	 
these students is challenging, given their language barriers.	 
This testimony describes (1) the extent to which these students  
are meeting annual academic progress goals, (2) what states have 
done to ensure the validity of their academic assessments, (3)	 
what states are doing to ensure the validity of their English	 
language proficiency assessments, and (4) how the U.S. Department
of Education (Education) is supporting states' efforts to meet	 
NCLBA's assessment requirements for these students. This	 
testimony is based on a July 2006 report (GAO-06-815). To collect
the information for this report, we convened a group of experts  
and studied five states (California, Nebraska, New York, North	 
Carolina, and Texas). We also conducted a state survey and	 
reviewed state and Education documents. 			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-646T					        
    ACCNO:   A67195						        
  TITLE:     No Child Left Behind Act: Education Assistance Could Help
States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English  
Proficiency							 
     DATE:   03/23/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Academic achievement				 
	     Education program evaluation			 
	     Educational standards				 
	     Educational testing				 
	     Elementary education				 
	     Elementary school students 			 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Secondary education				 
	     Secondary school students				 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Assessments					 
	     Non English speaking				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-07-646T

   

     * [1]Background
     * [2]Students with Limited English Proficiency Performed below Pr
     * [3]Selected States Considered Language Issues when Developing A

          * [4]States Reported Efforts to Improve Validity of Assessment Re
          * [5]Both Education's Peer Reviews and Our Group of Experts Raise
          * [6]Accommodations Can Increase Validity of Assessment Results,
          * [7]Native Language and Alternate Assessments May Improve the Va

     * [8]Most States Implemented New English Language Proficiency Ass
     * [9]Education Has Provided Assistance, but States Reported Need

          * [10]Education Has Provided a Variety of Support on Assessment Is
          * [11]Education Has Offered Different Accountability Options for S

     * [12]Prior Recommendations and Agency Response
     * [13]GAO Contacts
     * [14]GAO's Mission
     * [15]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [16]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [17]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [18]Congressional Relations
     * [19]Public Affairs

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT
Friday, March 23, 2007

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

Education Assistance Could Help States Better Measure Progress of Students
with Limited English Proficiency

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

GAO-07-646T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to present information from our July 2006
report on the assessment requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLBA) as they pertain to students with limited English proficiency.1 An
estimated 5 million children with limited English proficiency were
enrolled in U.S. public schools during the 2003-2004 school year,
representing about 10 percent of the total school population. They speak
over 400 languages, with almost 80 percent of students with limited
English proficiency speaking Spanish. These students often have language
difficulties that interfere with their ability to succeed in school and,
prior to NCLBA, were often excluded from statewide assessments. NCLBA's
requirements have brought to the surface a number of challenges to
assessing the academic performance of these students in a valid and
reliable manner (that is, the assessment measures what it is designed to
measure in a consistent manner).

Congress passed NCLBA with the goal of increasing academic achievement and
closing achievement gaps. NCLBA required states to demonstrate that all
students have reached the "proficient" level on a state's language arts
and mathematics assessments by 2014, and states must demonstrate "adequate
yearly progress" toward this goal each year. In addition, students from
groups that traditionally underperform, including students with limited
English proficiency, must meet the same academic progress goals as other
students. For the first time, NCLBA also required states to annually
assess the English proficiency of these students and to demonstrate that
they are making progress toward becoming proficient in English.

My testimony today will focus on (1) the extent to which students with
limited English proficiency are meeting adequate yearly progress goals,
(2) what states have done to ensure that results from language arts and
mathematics assessments are valid and reliable for students with limited
English proficiency, (3) how states are assessing English proficiency and
what they are doing to address the validity and reliability of these
assessment results, and (4) how the Department of Education (Education) is
supporting states' efforts to meet NCLBA's assessment requirements for
these students. The information being presented today is from our July
2006 report.

1GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help
States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English
Proficiency, [20]GAO-06-815 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006).

In summary, students with limited English proficiency did not meet state
proficiency goals on language arts and mathematics tests in nearly
two-thirds of 48 states for which we obtained data in the 2003-2004 school
year. Officials in 5 states we studied reported taking steps to follow
generally accepted test development procedures to ensure the validity and
reliability of their academic tests for students with limited English
proficiency. However, a group of experts we consulted expressed concerns
about whether all states were assessing these students in a valid manner.
These experts noted that some states lack the technical expertise needed
to ensure the validity of tests for these students. As evidence of the
challenges states face, Education's completed peer reviews of 38 states
found that 25 did not provide adequate evidence on the validity or
reliability of test results for these students. We also found that, as
allowed under law, most states offer accommodations, such as a bilingual
dictionary, to these students in order to improve the validity of language
arts and mathematics test results. However, our experts reported that
research is lacking on what accommodations are effective for these
students. With respect to English language proficiency assessments, many
states were implementing new tests in 2006 to meet NCLBA requirements, and
as a result, complete information on their validity and reliability was
not available at the time of our review. Education has offered a variety
of technical assistance to help states assess students with limited
English proficiency. However, Education has issued little written guidance
to states on developing English language proficiency tests. Officials in
about one-third of the 33 states we contacted told us they wanted more
guidance about how to develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements.

To help states assess students with limited English proficiency in a valid
and reliable manner, our recent report included several recommendations.
Education agreed with most of the report's recommendations and has taken a
number of steps to address them. Specifically, Education has initiated a
partnership with the states and other organizations to support the
development of valid assessment options for students with limited English
proficiency.

To determine the extent to which students with limited English proficiency
were meeting adequate yearly progress goals, we collected school year
2003-2004 state-level data for 48 states, including the District of
Columbia. With regard to assessments, we studied the testing practices of
5 states in depth (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and
Texas). We also directly contacted officials in 28 states to discuss their
English language proficiency assessments and Education's guidance
regarding these assessments. Further, we convened a group of experts to
discuss states' efforts to implement valid and reliable academic
assessments for students with limited English proficiency. These experts
had significant technical and research expertise in assessment issues, and
some had conducted research focused on students with limited English
proficiency. We also interviewed Education officials and reviewed relevant
Education documents. Finally, we interviewed officials from major test
development companies and state consortia that are developing English
language proficiency assessments and used a short e-mail survey to obtain
information from the 50 states and the District of Columbia on their use
of native language assessments. We conducted the review in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Background

Students with limited English proficiency are a diverse and complex group.
They speak many languages and have a tremendous range of educational needs
and include refugees with little formal schooling and students who are
literate in their native languages. Accurately assessing the academic
knowledge of these students in English is challenging. If a student
responds incorrectly to a test item, it may not be clear if the student
did not know the answer or misunderstood the question because of language
barriers.

Title I of NCLBA requires states to administer tests in language arts and
mathematics to all students in certain grades and to use these tests as
the primary means of determining the annual performance of states,
districts, and schools. These assessments must be aligned with the state's
academic standards--that is, they must measure how well a student has
demonstrated his or her knowledge of the academic content represented in
these standards. States are to show that increasing percentages of
students are reaching the proficient level on these state tests over time.
NCLBA also requires that students with limited English proficiency receive
reasonable accommodations and be assessed, to the extent practicable, in
the language and form most likely to yield accurate data on their academic
knowledge. In addition, for language arts, students with limited English
proficiency who have been in U.S. schools for 3 years or more must
generally be assessed in English. Finally, NCLBA also created a new
requirement for states to annually assess the English language proficiency
of students identified as having limited English proficiency.

Accurately assessing the academic knowledge of students with limited
English proficiency has become more critical because NCLBA designated
specific groups of students for particular focus. These four groups are
students who (1) are economically disadvantaged, (2) represent major
racial and ethnic groups, (3) have disabilities, and (4) are limited in
English proficiency. These groups are not mutually exclusive, so that the
results for a student who is economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, and has
limited English proficiency could be counted in three groups. States and
school districts are required to measure the progress of all students in
meeting academic proficiency goals, as well as to measure separately the
progress of these designated groups. To make adequate yearly progress,
each district and school must generally show that each of these groups met
the state proficiency goal and that at least 95 percent of students in
each group participated in these assessments.2 Students with limited
English proficiency are a unique group under NCLBA because once they
attain English proficiency they are no longer counted as part this group,
although Education has given states some flexibility in this area.

Recognizing that language barriers can hinder the assessment of students
who have been in the country for a short time, Education has provided some
testing flexibility.3 Specifically, Education does not require students
with limited English proficiency to participate in a state's language arts
assessment during their first year in U.S. schools. In addition, while
these students must take a state's mathematics assessment during their
first year, a state may exclude their scores in determining whether it met
its progress goals.

Title III of NCLBA focuses specifically on students with limited English
proficiency, with the purpose of ensuring that these students attain
English proficiency and meet the same academic standards as other
students. This title holds states and districts accountable for student
progress in attaining English proficiency by requiring states to establish
goals to demonstrate annual increases in both the number of students
attaining English proficiency and the number making progress in learning
English. States must establish English language proficiency standards that
are aligned with a state's academic standards in order to ensure that
students are acquiring the academic language they need to successfully
participate in the classroom. Education also requires that a state's
English language proficiency assessment be aligned to its English language
proficiency standards. While NCLBA requires states to administer academic
assessments to students in some grades, it requires states to administer
English language proficiency assessments annually to all students with
limited English proficiency, from kindergarten to grade 12.

2To be deemed as having made adequate yearly progress for a given year,
each district and school must show that the requisite percentage of each
designated student group, as well as the student population as a whole,
met the state proficiency goal. Further, schools must also demonstrate
that they have met state targets on other academic indicators, such as
graduation rates or attendance. Alternatively, a district or school can
make adequate yearly progress through the "safe harbor" provision if the
percentage of students in a group considered not proficient decreased by
at least 10 percent from the preceding year and the group made progress on
one of the state's other academic indicators. States also use statistical
procedures, such as confidence intervals, to improve the reliability of
the results used to determine adequate yearly progress.

3On September 13, 2006, Education issued a final regulation on this
flexibility. 71 Fed. Reg. 54188 (Sept. 13, 2006).

Students with Limited English Proficiency Performed below Progress Goals in 2004
in Almost Two-Thirds of States

In nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained data, students
with limited English proficiency did not meet state proficiency goals in
the 2003-2004 school year. Students with limited English proficiency met
goals in language arts and mathematics in 17 states.4 In 31 states, these
students missed the goals either for language arts or for both language
arts and mathematics (see fig. 1). In 21 states, the percentage of
proficient students in this group was below both the mathematics and the
language arts proficiency goals.

4In 7 of the 17 states, students with limited English proficiency met a
state's adequate yearly progress goals through NCLBA's safe harbor
provision--that is, by decreasing the percentage of students scoring
nonproficient by 10 percent or more and showing progress on another
academic indicator.

Figure 1: School Year 2003-2004 Comparison of Percentage of Students with
Limited English Proficiency Who Achieved Proficient Scores in Language
Arts and Mathematics with State-Established Progress Goals

Notes: We obtained data for 42 states from their state Web sites and
contacted state officials in 6 states to obtain these data. Three states
did not report data in a format that allowed us to determine whether the
percentage of students with limited English proficiency met or exceeded
the annual progress goals established by the state.

When states reported proficiency data for different grades or groups of
grades, we determined that students with limited English proficiency met a
state's progress goals if the student group met all proficiency and
participation goals for all grades reported. An Education official told us
that a state could not make adequate yearly progress if it missed one of
the progress goals at any grade level.

All of the states on the map where the proficiency percentage for students
with limited English proficiency met or exceeded the state's annual
progress goal also met NCLBA's participation goals.

We incorporated states' use of confidence intervals and NCLBA's safe
harbor provision in determining whether the percentage of students with
limited English proficiency achieving proficient scores met or exceeded a
state's progress goals. If a state's published data did not explicitly
include such information, we contacted state officials to ensure that the
state did not meet its progress goals through the use of confidence
intervals or through NCLBA's safe harbor provision. In the following 7
states, the percentage of students with limited English proficiency was
below the state's annual progress goal for language arts or for both
language arts and mathematics, but the student group met the state's
requirements for progress through the safe harbor provision: Delaware,
Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah.

We reported 2004-2005 school year data for Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Utah
because we could not obtain data for the 2003-2004 school year. Data from
Iowa, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are for the 2002-2004 school years.

Rhode Island did not separately report participation rates for students
with limited English proficiency. Instead, it reported that all students
met the 95 percent participation goal.

We found that the percentage of elementary school students with limited
English proficiency achieving proficient scores on the state's mathematics
assessment was lower than that for the total student population in 48 of
49 states that reported to Education in school year 2003-2004. We also
found that, in general, a lower percentage of students with limited
English proficiency achieved proficient test scores than other selected
student groups. All of the 49 states reported that these students achieved
lower rates of proficiency than white students.5 The performance of
limited English proficient students relative to the other student groups
varied. In 37 states, for example, economically disadvantaged students
outperformed students with limited English proficiency, while students
with disabilities outperformed these students in 14 states.

5Student groups are not mutually exclusive, with each of the ethnic and
racial categories probably including some number of students with limited
English proficiency. For example, the results for a student who is both
white and limited English proficient would be included in both groups.

Selected States Considered Language Issues when Developing Academic Assessments,
but Validity and Reliability Concerns Remain

Officials in the 5 states we studied reported that they have taken steps
to address challenges associated with academic assessments of students
with limited English proficiency. However, Education's peer reviews of 38
states found a number of concerns in assessing these students. Our group
of experts indicated that states are generally not taking the appropriate
set of comprehensive steps to create valid and reliable assessments for
students with limited English proficiency. To increase validity and
reliability, most states offered accommodations to students, such as
providing extra time to complete the test and offering native language
assessments. However, offering accommodations may or may not improve the
validity of test results, as research in this area is lacking.

States Reported Efforts to Improve Validity of Assessment Results for Students
with Limited English Proficiency

Officials in 5 states we studied reported taking some steps to address
challenges associated with assessing students with limited English
proficiency. Officials in 4 of these states reported following generally
accepted test development procedures, while a Nebraska official reported
that the state expects districts to follow such procedures.

Officials in California, New York, North Carolina, and Texas told us that
they try to implement the principles of universal design, which support
making assessments accessible to the widest possible range of students.
This is done by ensuring that instructions, forms, and questions are clear
and not more linguistically complex than necessary. In addition, officials
in some states reported assembling committees to review test items for
bias. For example, when developing mathematics items, these states try to
make language as clear as possible to ensure that the item is measuring
primarily mathematical concepts and to minimize the extent to which it is
measuring language proficiency. A mathematics word problem involving
subtraction, for example, might refer to fish rather than barracuda.
Officials in 3 of our study states told us they also used a statistical
approach to evaluate test items for bias related to students with limited
English proficiency.

Both Education's Peer Reviews and Our Group of Experts Raised Concerns Regarding
State Efforts to Ensure Valid and Reliable Assessment Results

Education's completed NCLBA peer reviews of 38 states6 found that 25 did
not provide sufficient evidence on the validity or reliability of results
for students with limited English proficiency. For example, in Idaho, peer
reviewers commented that the state did not report reliability data for
students with limited English proficiency. As of March 2007, 18 states
have had their assessment systems fully approved by Education.7

Our group of experts indicated that states are generally not taking the
appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create valid and reliable
assessments for these students and identified essential steps that should
be taken. These experts noted that no state has implemented an assessment
program for students with limited English proficiency that is consistent
with technical standards. They noted that students with limited English
proficiency are not defined consistently within and across states, which
is a crucial first step to ensuring reliability. If the language
proficiency levels of these students are classified inconsistently, an
assessment may produce results that appear inconsistent because of the
variable classifications rather than actual differences in skills.
Further, it appears that many states do not conduct separate analyses for
different groups of limited English proficient students. Our group of
experts indicated that the reliability of a test may be different for
heterogeneous groups of students, such as students who are literate in
their native language and those who are not. Further, these experts noted
that states are not always explicit about whether an assessment is
attempting to measure skills only (such as mathematics) or mathematics
skills as expressed in English. According to the group, a fundamental
issue affecting the validity of a test is the definition of what is being
measured.

The expert group emphasized that determining the validity and reliability
of academic assessments for students with limited English proficiency is
complicated and requires a comprehensive collection of evidence rather
than a single analysis. In addition, the appropriate combination of
analyses will vary from state to state, depending on the characteristics
of the student population and the type of assessment. The group indicated
that states are not universally using all the appropriate analyses to
evaluate the validity and reliability of test results for students with
limited English proficiency. These experts indicated that some states may
need assistance to conduct appropriate analyses. Finally, they indicated
that reducing language complexity is essential to developing valid
assessments for these students, but expressed concern that some states and
test developers do not have a strong understanding of universal design
principles or how to use them to develop assessments that eliminate
language barriers to measuring specific skills.

6As of July 2006, Education had conducted peer reviews of 50 states and
the District of Columbia. However, detailed peer review notes were
available from only 38 states at the time of our review.

7Education's approval is pending for 29 states, while approval is expected
for an additional 3 states. Mississippi has received a waiver from peer
review approval for 1 year due to Hurricane Katrina.

Accommodations Can Increase Validity of Assessment Results, but Research on
Appropriate Use Is Limited

The majority of states offered some accommodations to try to increase the
validity and reliability of assessment results for students with limited
English proficiency. These accommodations are intended to permit students
to demonstrate their academic knowledge, despite limited language ability.
Our review of state Web sites found documentation on accommodations for 42
states. The number of accommodations offered varied considerably among
states. The most common accommodations were allowing the use of a
bilingual dictionary and reading test items aloud in English (see table
1). Some states also administered assessments to small groups of students
or individuals, while others gave students extra time to complete a test.

Table 1: Most Frequently Cited Accommodations in 42 States

Accommodation                           Number of states 
Bilingual dictionary                                  32 
Reading items aloud in English                        32 
Small group administration                            29 
Extra time                                            27 
Individual administration                             27 
Separate location                                     25 
Extra breaks                                          25 
Directions in student's native language               24 

Source: GAO review of state documentation.

According to our expert group and our review of literature, research is
lacking on what specific accommodations are appropriate for students with
limited English proficiency, as well as their effectiveness in improving
the validity of assessment results. A 2004 review of state policies found
that few studies focus on accommodations intended to address the
linguistic needs of students with limited English proficiency or on how
accommodations affect the performance of students with limited English
proficiency.8 In contrast, significantly more research has been conducted
on accommodations for students with disabilities, much of it funded by
Education. Because of this research disparity, our group of experts
reported that some states offer accommodations to students with limited
English proficiency based on those they offer to students with
disabilities, without determining their appropriateness for individual
students. They noted the importance of considering individual student
characteristics to ensure that an accommodation appropriately addresses
the needs of the student.

Native Language and Alternate Assessments May Improve the Validity of Results
but Are Challenging to Implement

In our survey, 16 states reported that they offered statewide native
language assessments in language arts or mathematics in some grades for
certain students with limited English proficiency in the 2004-2005 school
year. For example, New York translated its statewide mathematics
assessments into Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Korean, and Haitian-Creole. In
addition, 3 states were developing or planning to develop a native
language assessment.

Our group of experts told us that this type of assessment is difficult and
costly to develop. Development of a valid native language assessment
involves more than a simple translation of the original test. In most
situations, a process of test development and validation similar to that
of the nontranslated test is recommended. In addition, the administration
of native language assessments may not be practicable, for example, when
only a small percentage of limited English proficient students in the
state speak a particular language or when a state's student population has
many languages. Members of our expert group told us that native language
assessments are generally an effective accommodation only for students in
specific circumstances, such as students who are instructed in their
native language or are literate in their native language.

Thirteen states offered statewide alternate assessments (such as reviewing
a student's classroom work portfolio) in 2005 for certain students with
limited English proficiency, as of March 2006. Our expert group noted that
alternate assessments are difficult and expensive to develop, and may not
be feasible because of the amount of time required for such an assessment.
Members of the group also expressed concern about the extent to which
these assessments are objective and comparable and can be aggregated with
regular assessments.

8Charlene Rivera and Eric Collum. An Analysis of State Assessment Policies
Addressing the Accommodation of English Language Learners. The George
Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education,
Arlington, Virginia: (January 2004).

Most States Implemented New English Language Proficiency Assessments but Faced
Challenges Establishing Their Validity

Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments for
the 2005-2006 school year to meet Education's requirement for states to
administer English language proficiency tests that meet NCLBA requirements
by the spring of 2006.9 These assessments must allow states to track
student progress in learning English. Additionally, Education requires
that these assessments be aligned to a state's English language
proficiency standards. Education officials said that because many states
did not have tests that met NCLBA requirements, the agency funded four
state consortia to develop new assessments that were to be aligned with
state standards and measure student progress.

In the 2005-2006 school year, 22 states used assessments or test items
developed by one of four state consortia, making this the most common
approach taken by states. Eight states worked with test developers to
augment off-the-shelf English language proficiency assessments to
incorporate state standards. Officials in 14 states indicated that they
are administering off-the-shelf assessments. Seven states, including
Texas, Minnesota, and Kansas, created their own English language
proficiency assessments. Officials in these states said they typically
worked with a test developer or research organization to create the
assessments.

Officials in our study states and test developers we interviewed reported
that they commonly apply generally accepted test development procedures to
develop their assessments, but some are still in the process of
documenting their validity and reliability. A 2005 review of the
documentation of 17 English proficiency assessments used by 33 states
found that the evidence on validity and reliability was generally
insufficient.10 The study, which was funded by Education, noted that none
of the assessments contained "sufficient technical evidence to support the
high-stakes accountability information and conclusions of student
readiness they are meant to provide."

9Education officials told us that the agency has approved an extension of
this deadline for 1 state and is currently considering extension requests
from 2 other states.

10Stanley Rabinowitz and Edynn Sato, "Evidence-Based Plan: Technical
Adequacy of Assessments for Alternate Student Populations: A Technical
Review of High-Stakes Assessments for English Language Learners," WestEd
(December 2005).

Education Has Provided Assistance, but States Reported Need for Additional
Guidance and Flexibility

Education has offered states a variety of technical assistance to help
them appropriately assess students with limited English proficiency, such
as providing training and expert reviews of their assessment systems.
However, Education has issued little written guidance on how states are
expected to assess and track the English proficiency of these students,
leaving state officials unclear about Education's expectations. While
Education has offered states some flexibility in how they incorporate
these students into their accountability systems, many of the state and
district officials we interviewed indicated that additional flexibility is
needed to ensure that academic progress of these students is accurately
measured.

Education Has Provided a Variety of Support on Assessment Issues but Little
Written Guidance on Assessing Students with Limited English Proficiency

Education offers support in a variety of ways to help states meet NCLBA's
assessment requirements for students with limited English proficiency. The
department's primary technical assistance efforts have included the
following:

           o Title I peer reviews of states' academic standards and
           assessment systems: During these reviews, experts review evidence
           provided by the state about the validity and reliability of these
           assessments. Education shares information from the peer review to
           help states address issues identified during the review.

           o Title III monitoring visits: Education began conducting site
           visits to review state compliance with Title III requirements in
           2005. As part of these visits, the department reviews the state's
           progress in developing English language proficiency assessments
           that meet NCLBA requirements.

           o Comprehensive centers: Education has contracted with 16 regional
           comprehensive centers to build state capacity to help districts
           that are not meeting their adequate yearly progress goals. At
           least 3 of these centers plan to assist individual states in
           developing appropriate goals for student progress in learning
           English. In 2005, Education also funded an assessment and
           accountability comprehensive center, which provides technical
           assistance related to the assessment of students, including those
           with limited English proficiency.
           o Ongoing technical assistance for English language proficiency
           assessments: Education has provided information and ongoing
           technical assistance to states using a variety of tools and has
           focused specifically on the development of the English language
           proficiency standards and assessments required by NCLBA.

While providing this technical assistance, Education has issued little
written guidance on developing English language proficiency assessments
that meet NCLBA's requirements and on tracking the progress of students in
acquiring English. Education issued some limited nonregulatory guidance on
NCLBA's basic requirements for English language proficiency standards and
assessments in February 2003.

However, officials in about one-third of the 33 states we contacted
expressed uncertainty about implementing these requirements. They told us
that they would like more specific guidance from Education to help them
develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements, generally focusing on two
issues. First, some officials said they were unsure about how to align
English language proficiency standards with content standards for language
arts, mathematics, and science, as required by NCLBA. Second, some
officials reported that they did not know how to use the different scores
from their old and new English language proficiency assessments to track
student progress. Without guidance and specific examples on both of these
issues, some of these officials were concerned that they will spend time
and resources developing an assessment that may not meet Education's
requirements. Education officials told us that they were currently
developing additional nonregulatory guidance on these issues, but it had
not yet been finalized.

Education Has Offered Different Accountability Options for Students with Limited
English Proficiency, but State Officials Reported Additional Flexibility Is
Needed

Education has offered states several flexibilities in tracking academic
progress goals for students with limited English proficiency to support
their efforts to develop appropriate accountability systems for these
students. For example, students who have been in U.S. schools for less
than a year do not have to meet the same testing requirements as other
students. Another flexibility recognizes that limited English proficiency
is a more transient quality than being of a particular race. Students who
achieve English proficiency leave the group at the point when they
demonstrate their academic knowledge in English, while new students with
lower English proficiency are constantly entering the group (see fig. 2).
Given the group's continually changing composition, meeting progress goals
may be more difficult than doing so for other student groups, especially
in districts serving large numbers of these students. Consequently,
Education allowed states to include, for up to 2 years, the scores of
students who were formerly classified as limited English proficient when
determining whether a state met its progress goals for students with
limited English proficiency.

Figure 2: Movement of Students In and Out of Limited English Proficient
Student Group and Other Student Groups

Several state and local officials in our study states told us that
additional flexibility would be helpful to ensure that the annual progress
measures provide meaningful information about the performance of students
with limited English proficiency. Officials in 4 of the states we studied
suggested that certain students with limited English proficiency should be
exempt from testing or have their test results excluded for longer periods
than is currently allowed. Several officials voiced concern that some of
these students have such poor English skills or so little previous school
experience that assessment results do not provide any meaningful
information. Instead, some of these officials stated that students with
limited English proficiency should not be included in academic assessments
until they demonstrate appropriate English. However, the National Council
of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization, has voiced concern that
excluding too many students from a state's annual progress measures will
allow some states and districts to overlook the needs of these students.

With respect to including the scores of students previously classified as
limited English proficient for up to 2 years, officials in 2 of our 5
study states, as well as one member of our expert group, thought it would
be more appropriate for these students to be counted in the limited
English proficient group throughout their school careers--but only for
accountability purposes. They pointed out that by keeping students
formerly classified as limited English proficient in the group, districts
that work well with these students would see increases in the percentage
who score at the proficient level in language arts and mathematics. An
Education official explained that the agency does not want to label these
students as limited English proficient any longer than necessary.
Education officials also noted that including all students who were
formerly limited English proficient would inflate the achievement measures
for this group.

District officials in 4 states argued that tracking the progress of
individual students in this group is a better measure of how well these
students are progressing academically. Officials in one district pointed
to a high school with a large percentage of students with limited English
proficiency that had made tremendous progress with these students,
doubling the percentage of students achieving academic proficiency. The
school missed the annual progress target for this group by a few
percentage points, but school officials said that the school would be
considered successful if it was measured by how much individual students
had improved. In response to educators and policymakers who believe such
an approach should be used for all students, Education initiated a pilot
project in November 2005, allowing a limited number of states to
incorporate measures of student progress over time in determining whether
districts and schools met their annual progress goals.11

Prior Recommendations and Agency Response

We made several recommendations to Education in our July 2006 report.
Specifically, we recommended that Education support additional research on
appropriate accommodations for these students and disseminate information
on research-based accommodations to states. We also recommended that
Education determine what additional technical assistance states need to
implement valid and reliable academic assessments for these students and
provide such assistance. Further, we recommended that Education publish
additional guidance with more specific information on the requirements for
assessing English language proficiency and tracking student progress in
learning English. Finally, we recommended that Education explore ways to
provide states with additional flexibility in terms of holding states
accountable for students with limited English proficiency.

Education agreed with our first three recommendations and has taken a
number of steps to address them. In recognition of the challenges
associated with assessing students with limited English proficiency and in
response to GAO's report, Education initiated the LEP (Limited English
Proficient) Partnership in July 2006. Under the partnership, Education has
pledged to provide technical assistance and support to states in the
development of assessment options for states to use in addressing the
needs of their diverse student populations. Education's partners in this
effort include the National Council of LaRaza, Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, Council of Chief State School Officers,
Comprehensive Center on Assessment and Accountability, and the National
Center on English Language Acquisition. All states have been invited to
participate in this effort. The partnership held its first meeting in
August 2006. In October 2006, officials from all the states came together
to discuss areas for which they need additional technical assistance. As a
result of these meetings, Education is supporting a variety of technical
assistance projects, including the development of a framework on English
language proficiency standards and assessments, the development of guides
for developing native language and simplified assessments, and the
development of a handbook on appropriate accommodations for students with
limited English proficiency. Education officials told us that they are
planning the next partnership meeting for the summer of 2007 and expect to
have several of these resources available at that time.

11See GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring
Academic Growth That Education's Initiatives May Help Address,
[21]GAO-06-661 (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006), for further information
on Education's pilot project.

Education did not explicitly agree or disagree with our recommendation to
explore additional options for state flexibility. Instead, the agency
commented that it has explored and already provided various types of
flexibility regarding the inclusion of students with limited English
proficiency in accountability systems. However, in January 2007, Education
issued a blueprint for strengthening NCLBA, which calls for greater use of
growth models and the recognition within state accountability systems of
schools that make significant progress in moving students toward English
proficiency.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.

GAO Contacts

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512- 7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
include Harriet Ganson, Bryon Gordon, Shannon Groff, Krista Loose,
Michelle St. Pierre, Sheranda Campbell, and Nagla'a El Hodiri.

Related GAO Products

No Child Left Behind Act: Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could
Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds. [22]GAO-07-140 .
Washington, D.C.: December 7, 2006.

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local
Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services.
[23]GAO-06-758 . Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2006.

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

No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic Growth
That Education's Initiatives May Help Address. [25]GAO-06-661 .
Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006.

No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education's
Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification
Requirements. [26]GAO-06-25 . Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2005.

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More to Help States Better
Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention
Strategies. [27]GAO-05-879 . Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2005.

No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated in
Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved.
[28]GAO-05-618 . Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005.

Head Start: Further Development Could Allow Results of New Test to Be Used
for Decision Making. [29]GAO-05-343 . Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005.

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional Technical
Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School Choice Provision.
[30]GAO-05-7 . Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004.

No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process for
Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. [31]GAO-04-734 .
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.

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. However, 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.

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:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-646T.

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
[email protected].

Highlights of [39]GAO-07-646T , a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives

March2007

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

Education Assistance Could Help States Better Measure Progress of Students
with Limited English Proficiency

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) focused attention on the
academic achievement of more than 5 million students with limited English
proficiency. Obtaining valid test results for these students is
challenging, given their language barriers. This testimony describes (1)
the extent to which these students are meeting annual academic progress
goals, (2) what states have done to ensure the validity of their academic
assessments, (3) what states are doing to ensure the validity of their
English language proficiency assessments, and (4) how the U.S. Department
of Education (Education) is supporting states' efforts to meet NCLBA's
assessment requirements for these students.

This testimony is based on a July 2006 report (GAO-06-815). To collect the
information for this report, we convened a group of experts and studied
five states (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Texas).
We also conducted a state survey and reviewed state and Education
documents.

[40]What GAO Recommends

The GAO report recommended that Education (1) support research on
accommodations, (2) identify and provide technical support states need to
ensure the validity of academic assessments, (3) publish additional
guidance on requirements for assessing English language proficiency, and
(4) explore ways to provide additional flexibility for measuring annual
progress for these students. Education generally agreed with our
recommendations and has taken a number of steps to address them.

In nearly two-thirds of 48 states for which we obtained data, students
with limited English proficiency did not meet state proficiency goals for
language arts or mathematics in school year 2003-2004. Further, in most
states, these students generally did not perform as well as other student
groups on state mathematics tests for elementary students.

Officials in our five study states reported taking steps to follow
generally accepted test development procedures to ensure the validity and
reliability of academic tests for these students. However, our group of
experts expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing these
students in a valid manner, noting that some states lack technical
expertise. Further, Education's completed peer reviews of assessments in
38 states found that 25 states did not provide adequate evidence of their
validity or reliability. To improve the validity of these test results,
most states offer accommodations, such as a bilingual dictionary. However,
our experts reported that research is lacking on what accommodations are
effective in mitigating language barriers. Several states used native
language or alternate assessments for students with limited English
proficiency, but these tests are costly to develop and are not appropriate
for all students.

Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments in
2006 to meet NCLBA requirements, and, as a result, complete information on
their validity and reliability is not yet available. In 2006, 22 states
used tests developed by one of four state consortia. Officials in our
study states reported taking steps to ensure the validity of these tests.
However, a 2005 Education-funded review of 17 English language proficiency
tests found insufficient documentation of their validity.

Education has offered a variety of technical assistance to help states
assess students with limited English proficiency. However, Education has
issued little written guidance to states on developing English language
proficiency tests. Officials in about one-third of the 33 states we
contacted told us they wanted more guidance about how to develop tests
that meet NCLBA requirements. Education has offered states some
flexibility in how they assess students with limited English proficiency,
but officials in our study states told us that additional flexibility is
needed to ensure that progress measures appropriately track the academic
progress of these students. Since our report was published, Education has
initiated a partnership with the states and other organizations to support
the development of valid assessment options for students with limited
English proficiency.

References

Visible links
  20. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-815
  21. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-661
  22. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-140
  23. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-758
  24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-815
  25. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-661
  26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-25
  27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-879
  28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-618
  29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-343
  30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-7
  31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-734
  32. http://www.gao.gov/
  33. http://www.gao.gov/
  34. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  35. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07646t.htm#mailto:[email protected]
  36. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07646t.htm#mailto:[email protected]
  37. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07646t.htm#mailto:[email protected]
  39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-815
*** End of document. ***