Public Education: Title I Services Provided to Students With Limited
English Proficiency (Letter Report, 12/10/1999, GAO/HEHS-00-25).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on: (1)
how many students with limited English proficiency are being served
through targeted and schoolwide Title I programs; (2) how students with
limited English proficiency are being served through targeted and
schoolwide Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I programs; (3)
how many Title I teachers in schools serving students with limited
English proficiency are bilingual or have other specialized training in
teaching these students; and (4) what accommodations do states allow for
students with limited English proficiency in taking academic
assessments, including offering tests in their native language, and to
what extent are these students participating in academic assessments.
GAO noted that: (1) Title I educational programs serve about 2 million
of the estimated 3.5 million students with limited English proficiency;
(2) these children receive services through programs targeted
specifically to disadvantaged children who may be at risk of failing in
school as well as programs intended to improve learning for all students
in a school; (3) about two-thirds of students with limited English
proficiency served by Title I programs participate in schoolwide versus
targeted assistance programs; (4) of the remaining third who attend
schools with targeted assistance programs, no national data are
available on the number who participate in Title I programs; (5) the
services students most often receive are in supplemental reading,
language arts, and math; (6) instruction targeted specifically to the
educational needs of nonnative speakers of English is primarily funded
by state and local programs and other non-Title I federal programs; (7)
in school year 1997-1998, 10 percent of the schools with targeted
assistance programs used Title I funds to provide this kind of
instruction to help nonnative speakers acquire English; (8) there is no
national information on the number of teachers in positions funded by
Title I who are bilingual or who have other specialized training in
teaching students with limited English proficiency; (9) about 10 percent
of teachers with students with limited English proficiency were
certified to teach English as a Second Language to native speakers of
other languages; (10) according to a survey by the Council of Chief
State School Officers, most states allow districts to provide help to
students with limited English proficiency so they can more easily
participate in academic assessments; (11) the type of help allowed often
has included such assistance as extra time to answer questions, having
someone read directions aloud, or translating instructions and test
items into a student's native language; (12) five states allow students
to respond to test questions in their native language; (13) districts
generally are allowed to determine which students may need
accommodations as well as the specific accomodation that would most
benefit them; and (14) GAO found no national data that showed how
frequently districts actually provided accommodations to students with
limited English proficiency or the degree to which they actually
participate in academic assessments.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: HEHS-00-25
TITLE: Public Education: Title I Services Provided to Students
With Limited English Proficiency
DATE: 12/10/1999
SUBJECT: Bilingual education
Educational testing
Aid for education
Teacher education
Minority education
Statistical data
Compensatory education
Educational standards
State-administered programs
IDENTIFIER: Dept. of Education Title I Program
Arizona
North Carolina
Florida
Illinois
Texas
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed 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. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
December 1999
PUBLIC EDUCATION - TITLE I
SERVICES PROVIDED TO STUDENTS WITH
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
GAO/HEHS-00-25
Limited English Proficiency
(104957)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AIMS - Arizona Instrument for Measuring Standards
ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
ESL - English as a Second Language
NAEP - National Assessment of Educational Progress
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-283082
December 10, 1999
The Honorable Matthew G. Martinez
The Honorable Ruben Hinojosa
House of Representatives
The number of students with limited English skills has grown over the
past 10 years. Between 1990 and 1997, the most recent year for which
data are available, the number of students with limited English
proficiency has increased by an estimated 57 percent--to
approximately 3.5 million. These children are among the most
educationally disadvantaged of all populations attending the nation's
elementary and secondary schools. In 1992, students speaking English
with difficulty dropped out of school at four times the rate of their
English-fluent peers, and also had higher rates of grade repetition.
Although educating children is primarily a state and local
responsibility, the federal government has played a significant role
in shaping the education of students, including those with limited
proficiency in English, for about 30 years. The federal government
has tried to help states and localities improve education for all
types of disadvantaged children by funding and supporting programs
that help these children achieve high academic standards, primarily
through title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
of 1965. Schools in which more than half of the students come from
low-income homes may use title I support to upgrade their entire
educational program in what is called a schoolwide program. In
contrast, schools in which fewer than half the students come from
low-income homes must use title I to provide targeted assistance only
to those disadvantaged students who are at greatest risk of failing.
You asked us to address the following questions:
-- How many students with limited English proficiency are being
served through targeted and schoolwide title I programs?
-- How are students with limited English proficiency being served
through targeted and schoolwide title I programs?
-- How many title I teachers in schools serving students with
limited English proficiency are bilingual or have other
specialized training in teaching these students?
-- What accommodations do states allow for students with limited
English proficiency in taking academic assessments, including
offering tests in their native language, and to what extent are
these students participating in academic assessments?
To answer these questions, we reviewed available studies on
second-language learning, as well as data from the Department of
Education and the states and school districts we visited. To
supplement this work, we conducted on-site interviews with school
district officials and teachers and observed classroom instruction in
10 public school districts, 2 in each of 5 states--Arizona, North
Carolina, Florida, Illinois, and Texas. These districts included
schools operating both schoolwide and targeted assistance title I
programs. They are located in four states with large numbers of
students who have limited English proficiency, and in one state
(North Carolina) with a rapidly growing population of these students.
We conducted our work between February and October 1999 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Title I educational programs serve about 2 million of the estimated
3.5 million students with limited English proficiency. These
children receive services through programs targeted specifically to
disadvantaged children who may be at risk of failing in school as
well as through schoolwide programs intended to improve learning for
all students in a school. About two-thirds of students with limited
English proficiency enrolled in title I schools attend schools with
schoolwide versus targeted assistance programs. Of the remaining
third who attend schools with targeted assistance programs, no
national data are available specifically on the number who
participate in title I programs.
The services students in targeted assistance programs most often
receive through title I are supplemental reading, language arts, and
math programs. These supplemental services are provided to all title
I students in these schools. Instruction targeted specifically to
the educational needs of nonnative speakers of English is primarily
funded through state and local programs and other non-title I federal
programs. In school year 1997-98, 10 percent of the schools with
targeted assistance programs used title I funds to provide this kind
of instruction to help nonnative speakers acquire English, according
to an Education survey. Similarly, in the districts we visited we
found that, in general, where children with limited English
proficiency received services funded by title I, these services were
also available to native English speakers, such as mathematics and
reading programs for all educationally disadvantaged children.
Reinforcing Education's data, districts said they rely heavily on
state aid and local revenue to fund English-language acquisition
programs.
There is no national information on the number of teachers in
positions funded by title I who are bilingual or who have other
specialized training in teaching students with limited English
proficiency. However, about 10 percent of teachers of students with
limited English proficiency were certified to provide bilingual
instruction, and 8 percent were fully certified to teach English as a
Second Language (ESL)\1 to native speakers of other languages,
according to a recent study funded by Education.\2 Many districts
have reported difficulties recruiting teachers qualified to teach
students with limited English proficiency, regardless of whether the
teachers were funded by title I or other state and local programs.
Teachers trained to provide instruction in a student's native
language, as well as teachers trained to teach English to native
speakers of other languages, appear to be in short supply.
According to a survey by the Council of Chief State School Officers,
most states allow districts to provide some form of help to students
with limited English proficiency so that they can more easily
participate in academic assessments. The type of help allowed often
has included such assistance as extra time to answer questions,
having someone read directions aloud, or translating instructions and
test items into a student's native language. According to the
survey, five states allow students to respond to test questions in
their native language. Districts generally are allowed to determine
which students may need accommodations as well as the specific
accommodations that would most benefit them. As a result, we found
no national data that showed how frequently districts actually
provide accommodations to students with limited English proficiency
or the degree to which they actually participate in academic
assessments.
--------------------
\1 This is a teaching approach in which students with limited English
proficiency are instructed in the use of the English language. This
instruction is based on a special curriculum that typically involves
little or no use of their native language.
\2 Howard L. Fleischman and Paul J. Hopstock, Descriptive Study of
Services to Limited English Proficient Students, Vol. 1 and 2
(Arlington, Va.: Development Associates, Inc., 1993).
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Over the years, the Congress has created a number of federal programs
to help children who are disadvantaged or have special needs (see
table 1). Students with limited English proficiency are included in
the population targeted by these programs, although, according to
Education officials, the extent to which they specifically benefit
from this aid is not clear for most programs.\3
Table 1
Federal Education Programs That Can
Provide Support Services to Students
with Limited English Proficiency
FY 1999
funding
Program\a (estimate)\b Description
-------------- ------------ ----------------------------
Education for $7.7 billion Helps educationally
Disadvantaged disadvantaged children
Children succeed in school. Students
("Title I") with limited English
proficiency may participate
in this program if they come
from disadvantaged
backgrounds and are at risk
of failing in school or if
they attend a school that
has a schoolwide program.
Bilingual $224 million Helps ensure that students
Education Act with limited English
(20 USC 7401- proficiency master English
7491) and develop high levels of
academic attainment in
content areas. Provides both
state and local grants.
Emergency $150 million Provides grants to school
Immigrant districts with unexpectedly
Education large increases in their
Program (20 student population due to
USC 7541- immigration.
7549)
Migrant $355 million Provides funds to states to
Education help educate the children of
Program (20 migrant agricultural
USC 6391- workers, including migratory
6399) fishers and dairy workers.
Carl D. $1.2 billion Provides funds to improve
Perkins the quality of vocational
Vocational education and provide access
Education and to vocational training to
Applied special populations, such as
Technology Act disadvantaged and disabled
(20 USC 2301 students.
et Seq.)
Individuals $5.1 billion Supports special education
with for infants, toddlers,
Disabilities children, and youth with
Education Act disabilities.
(20 USC 1400
et Seq.)
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Other federal programs may also support services to students with
limited English proficiency, so long as these students qualify to
receive services under the programs' guidelines for participation.
\b Based on Department of Education, Fiscal Year 1999 Budget.
Among the largest federal programs supporting elementary and
secondary education is title I of ESEA. Enacted in 1965, title I of
ESEA was intended to support state and local efforts to help all
children reach challenging academic standards by providing extra
resources to school districts and schools with the highest
concentrations of poverty, where academic performance tends to be low
and obstacles to raising performance greatest. Nearly all title I
funds are allocated to local school districts, which in turn provide
resources to individual schools.
The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA revised federal elementary and
secondary education programs extensively. Among the changes
implemented as a result of the reauthorization was the manner in
which school districts and schools could use their federal funding.
The reauthorization allowed more schools flexibility in how they use
title I funding by allowing more schoolwide programs. In contrast to
targeted assistance programs in which supplemental instruction can be
provided only to children identified as disadvantaged, schoolwide
programs allow schools to upgrade their entire educational program
with title I funding, thereby benefiting all children in a school,
regardless of income. Previously, such flexibility was allowed only
when 75 percent of the students in a school were from low-income
families.\4 The 1994 reauthorization extended this flexibility to
schools with 50 percent or more of students from low-income
households. By 1997-98, three-fourths of all title I funding went to
schools where 50 percent or more of the students were from low-income
households.
An additional change implemented with the reauthorization was a
requirement for increased accountability. By 2001, states
participating in the title I program will be required to adopt
challenging academic standards and implement student academic
assessments aligned with those standards. Further, states are to
ensure that students with limited English proficiency participate in
the assessments "to the extent practicable in the language and form
most likely to yield accurate information on what students know and
can do, to determine such students' mastery of skills in subjects
other than English." States must be able to report on the academic
performance of these students as a group, separate from their
English-fluent peers.
--------------------
\3 See for example, Migrant Children: Education and HHS Need to
Improve the Exchange of Participant Information (GAO/HEHS-00-4, Oct.
15, 1999).
\4 To measure their low-income student population, school districts
may count either the number of students receiving federal welfare
benefits or the number eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch.
NEARLY 2 MILLION STUDENTS WITH
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY ARE
SERVED THROUGH TITLE I PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Title I educational programs serve about 2 million students with
limited English proficiency, about one-fifth of the more than 11
million students receiving services funded by title I, according to
the latest available (school year 1996-97) data from Education.
These children participate in programs targeted specifically to
disadvantaged children who may be at risk of failing in school, as
well as through schoolwide programs intended to improve learning for
all students.
According to an Education survey, two-thirds of students
(approximately 1.3 million) with limited English proficiency who are
served by title I attend schools that have schoolwide programs.\5 Of
the one-third of students (approximately 730,000) with limited
English proficiency who attend schools with targeted assistance
programs, no national data are available on the number who receive
title I services. In the 10 school districts we visited in five
states, the vast majority of schools that received title I support
were operating schoolwide programs that benefited all students in the
school, not only students from disadvantaged families.
--------------------
\5 U.S. Department of Education, School-Level Implementation of
Standards-Based Reform: Findings from the Follow-Up Public School
Survey on Education Reform (Washington, D.C.: 1999).
MOST TITLE I SERVICES INVOLVE
SUPPLEMENTAL READING, LANGUAGE
ARTS, AND MATH
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Most title I services to students in targeted assistance programs
involve supplemental reading,\6 language arts, and math.\7 According
to an Education study, data from 1991 and 1992 indicate that about 44
percent of first-grade students and almost 60 percent of third-grade
students with limited English proficiency received some form of
supplemental education assistance in reading and language arts funded
by title I.\8 However, these supplemental services were provided to
all title I students in these schools. A smaller proportion of
students with limited English proficiency (about 30 percent of
first-graders and 45 percent of third-graders) received assistance in
math through programs funded by title I. The study also found that a
greater percentage of students in high-poverty schools received
assistance in both reading and math than did participants in other
schools.
According to this 1995 Education study, between 1991 and 1992, about
70 percent of students with limited English proficiency in first and
third grades received additional services targeted specifically for
the educational needs of nonnative English speakers.\9 However, large
proportions of students receiving these targeted services did not
receive them through title I. Often, these services were provided by
programs funded by state, local, or other federal non-title I
programs. A more recently completed Education survey reported that,
in school year 1997-98, 10 percent of schools with title I targeted
assistance programs were using title I funds to provide ESL
instruction to students with limited English proficiency.\10
Most of the districts we visited also did not use title I funding to
provide services targeted specifically to the educational needs of
non-native English speakers. District officials said they rely
heavily on state aid and local revenue to fund such programs. At the
five districts we visited with targeted assistance programs, only one
reported using a significant portion of title I funds on English
language acquisition. The remaining four districts reported using 20
percent or less. The exception was Phoenix, where 9 of the 25
teachers funded by title I were providing instruction directed
specifically at meeting the language needs of these students.
Districts we visited said they used small amounts of title I money
for the noninstructional needs of these students, such as purchasing
instructional materials in languages other than English, supporting
parent outreach, and providing professional development to staff
working with these students.
--------------------
\6 The standards for the English Language Arts developed by the
National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading
Association address the use of print, oral, and visual language and
address six interrelated English language arts: reading, writing,
speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing. Although
reading is one of the language arts, it is often referred to
separately from the others.
\7 U.S. Department of Education, Promising Results, Continuing
Challenges: The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I
(Washington, D.C.: 1999).
\8 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Services,
Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated Study of Education Growth
and Opportunity, First Year Report on Language Minority and Limited
English Proficient Students (Washington, D.C.: 1995).
\9 The Teachers of English as a Second Language have developed
standards for ESL. Although these standards are related to English
Language Arts, the ESL standards provide strategies for addressing
the needs of students who are adding English to their native
language. The ESL standards recognize that upon entry to school,
English language learners must acquire an additional language and
culture and learn the English language competencies that are
characteristic of native English speakers of the same age and, most
importantly, that are fundamental to the full attainment of English
language arts and other content standards. The standards recognize
the special instructional and assessment considerations needed to
achieve high academic standards throughout the curriculum.
\10 U.S. Department of Education, School-Level Implementation of
Standards-Based Reform: Findings from the Follow-Up Public School
Survey on Education Reform (Washington, D.C.: 1999).
LOW PERCENTAGE OF TEACHERS OF
STUDENTS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH
PROFICIENCY CERTIFIED IN
BILINGUAL EDUCATION OR ESL
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
We found no national data on the number of title I teachers who are
bilingual or certified to teach ESL. However, overall, about 10
percent of all teachers of students with limited English proficiency
were certified to provide bilingual instruction, and 8 percent were
certified to teach ESL. Recent studies have found that certified
bilingual and ESL teachers appear to be in short supply. For
example, one national study\11 found that about 80 percent of all
districts report having some to a lot of difficulty recruiting
bilingual teachers of Spanish and other languages. Over half (53
percent) reported having the same difficulty hiring ESL teachers.
Our visits to school districts also indicate that many have
difficulty in recruiting teachers who are qualified to teach students
with limited English proficiency. For example, district officials
from Rockford, Illinois, reported that they were looking in Mexico,
Puerto Rico, and Spain for qualified bilingual teachers, bringing
them to the United States, and obtaining provisional state teaching
certificates for them. District officials in Phoenix, Arizona, also
reported that they need to pay a higher salary to attract certified
bilingual and ESL teachers to the district.
Providing training to teachers of students with limited English
proficiency also appears to be a problem. One study estimated that,
although 40 percent of teachers nationwide had students with limited
English proficiency in their classes, many have not received any
training on how to meet the specific needs of these students.
According to another study, in school year 1993-94, less than
one-third of teachers of students with limited English proficiency
had received any training in teaching this type of student. Since
then, the number of teachers who have received training appears to
have grown somewhat. During school year 1997-98, 38 percent of
teachers reported having received some training to teach students
from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds--on average,
about 7 hours.\12 According to officials in the five states we
visited, only Florida has a state requirement that all teachers of
students with limited English proficiency receive specialized
training to meet their students' language needs. Florida teachers
who instruct students with limited English proficiency in core
academic areas are required to have received a minimum level of
training in areas that include methods of teaching English to
speakers of other languages and cross-cultural communication and
understanding.\13
--------------------
\11 Howard L. Fleischman and Paul J. Hopstock, Descriptive Study of
Services to Limited English Proficient Students, Summary of Findings
and Conclusions, Vol. 1 (Arlington, Va.: Development Associates;
1993).
\12 U.S. Department of Education, Study of Education Resources and
Federal Funding: Preliminary Report (Washington, D.C.: 1999).
\13 This requirement is the result of a 1990 consent decree between
the Florida State Board of Education and the League of United Latin
American Citizens.
MOST STATES ALLOW
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR STUDENTS
WITH LIMITED ENGLISH
PROFICIENCY IN ACADEMIC
ASSESSMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
According to a survey by the Council of Chief State School Officers,
to some degree, most states allow school districts to accommodate the
language needs of students who are participating in state academic
assessments and need such accommodations.\14 Some of the
accommodations states allow include reading directions or the test
aloud, interpreting and repeating directions, and allowing extended
testing time. Many states also allow districts to exempt students
from academic assessments if their English-speaking skills are not
sufficiently developed. Decisions to exempt students and provide
students with accommodations are generally made at the local level,
and the number of students affected is generally not reported.
Therefore, it is difficult to determine what accommodations are made
and the extent to which students with limited English proficiency are
actually participating in academic assessments. At the national
level, students with limited English proficiency are sometimes
excluded from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
--------------------
\14 Council of Chief State School Officers, Trends in State Student
Assessment Programs (Washington, D.C.: Fall 1997).
ACCOMMODATIONS INCLUDE EXTRA
TIME AND TRANSLATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
Nearly all states conduct student assessments, according to a recent
survey by the Council. In school year 1996-97, 48 states
administered academic assessments to measure student knowledge and
skills in various core subject areas, such as social studies,
science, reading, and language arts. In many states, one or more
achievement tests are used to assess student performance, most often
in grades 4, 8, and 11.
Of the 48 states administering academic assessments, 39 allowed
testing accommodations for some or all state assessments for students
with limited English proficiency.\15 States allow one or more types
of accommodation, depending on a student's particular needs. The
most common accommodation, which was allowed in 33 states, was
modification of the test presentation format. Common accommodations
in this category include reading directions and the test aloud, and
interpreting and repeating directions for students. Nineteen states
allowed either oral or written translation of the directions, and 10
allowed the translation of the test items into the student's native
language.
Thirty-one states allowed accommodations in the test-taking setting.
Such accommodations included taking the test individually or in small
groups, or having the test administered by a familiar person. In
North Carolina, students are allowed to be tested separately to
enhance their ability to concentrate. Twenty-eight states also
allowed students a different schedule for taking the tests, such as
extended testing time, more frequent breaks, or spreading out testing
sessions across several days. Fewer states (10) allowed students
with limited English proficiency to use nonstandard means of
responding to test questions. Of those states, only five allowed
students to answer the questions in their native language.
--------------------
\15 According to the Council, it collected information on whether
states allowed exemptions or accommodations. The information
collected reflects state policies, not necessarily district
practices.
EXEMPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
ASSESSMENTS ALLOWED FOR
STUDENTS WITH LIMITED
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2
The regular statewide academic assessment may not be appropriate for
some students with limited English proficiency, even with
accommodations, because their command of English is not sufficient
for them to participate in a meaningful way. In such cases,
according to the Council survey, 29 states allowed districts to
exempt students with limited English proficiency from all state
assessments, and 11 states allowed districts to exempt these students
from some assessments. In most states, the decision to exempt
students from state assessments is based upon the amount of time
students have lived in the United States, the amount of time spent in
an ESL program, and/or their score on a test of English proficiency.
Although the Council survey did not indicate how long the exemptions
were allowed, the districts we visited generally permitted exemptions
for the first few years students were enrolled in a school district
or in English language learning programs.
In 1994, the Congress called for alternative assessments for students
with limited English proficiency, which would allow states receiving
federal funding to reliably assess what such students can do and know
in subjects other than English.\16 Although the Council study showed
that 11 states reported having alternative assessments available for
students with limited English proficiency, the survey did not report
whether these alternatives included tests in the students' native
languages. However, according to a 1999 study by the Citizen's
Commission on Civil Rights,\17 a review of states' education plans
submitted to Education found that 13 states had plans to either use
or develop non-English academic assessments.\18
Of the five states we visited--Arizona, North Carolina, Florida,
Illinois, and Texas--only Texas and Arizona had prepared a
native-language version of the statewide academic assessment. In
Texas, Spanish-speaking students with limited English proficiency
were allowed to take the Spanish-language version of the Texas
Assessment of Academic Skills for a 3-year period (beginning the
first time the student took the test). Similarly, in Arizona,
Spanish-speaking students with limited English proficiency were
allowed to participate in the Spanish version of the Arizona
Instrument for Measuring Standards.\19 In the other states, three of
the six districts we visited selected from a number of
Spanish-language, standardized achievement tests available nationally
and administered these to Spanish-speaking students as an alternative
or in addition to the regular state academic assessments.\20 The
remaining three districts did not administer an alternative test.
None of the districts we visited administered achievement tests in
languages other than Spanish or English.
--------------------
\16 See 20 U.S.C. S. 6311 (b)(3)(F)(iii).
\17 The Citizen's Commission on Civil Rights is a bipartisan
commission established in 1982 to monitor the civil rights policies
and practices of the federal government and advocate for continued
progress in the area of civil rights.
\18 These included the following: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Delaware, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota,
Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Texas. At the time of our
review, Texas had already implemented a native language assessment.
Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, The Test of Our Progress: The
Clinton Record on Civil Rights, ed. Corrine M. Yu and William L.
Taylor (Washington, D.C.: Rock Creek Publishing Group, 1999).
\19 At the time of our review, Arizona required two statewide
academic assessments: the Arizona Instrument for Measuring Standards
(AIMS) and the Stanford 9. Students were allowed to take the AIMS
test once in Spanish. They were allowed to take the Spanish-language
alternative to the Stanford 9, called the Aprenda, for the initial
3-year period of school enrollment in the state.
\20 School districts in Texas may opt to administer the Spanish
language version of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills or an
acceptable alternative achievement test written in Spanish. San
Antonio and New Braunfels use both the Spanish Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills and alternative achievement tests in Spanish. New
Braunfels planned to also implement an additional achievement test in
Spanish beginning with school year 1999-2000.
STUDENTS WITH LIMITED
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
SOMETIMES EXCLUDED FROM THE
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.3
Many students with limited English proficiency have been excluded
from participation in the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), often referred to as the nation's report card, by local
school officials who believed the students' command of English was
insufficient to permit them to successfully complete the test. The
NAEP is a nationally representative assessment of what students know
in various core subject areas and has been administered by the
National Center for Education Statistics of the Department of
Education since 1969. States voluntarily participate, and a
representative sample of students is selected to take the test. In
the past, many students with limited English proficiency have been
excluded from taking the test even though they were selected to
participate. According to the Center, in 1994 one-third to one-half
of the students with limited English proficiency selected to
participate in the NAEP were excluded.\21
According to Education, many of the students were in fact capable of
participating in the assessment, especially if certain accommodations
could have been offered. Since 1994, Education has implemented new
criteria for including students with limited English proficiency; a
Spanish-language version of the NAEP mathematics assessment; and
accommodations in testing, such as extra time, small-group testing,
and having directions read aloud.
--------------------
\21 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, The Inclusion of Students With Disabilities and Limited
English Proficient Students in Large-Scale Assessments: A Summary of
Recent Progress, NCES 97-482 (July 1997).
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Although Education did not provide formal comments, technical
comments on a draft of this report provided additional information on
title I services, which we incorporated in this report as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
Copies of this report are being sent to the Honorable Richard W.
Riley, Secretary of Education, and interested congressional
committees. We will also make copies available to others upon
request.
If you have questions about the report, please call me on (202)
512-7215 or Eleanor Johnson on (202) 512-7209. Other contacts and
staff acknowledgments are listed in Appendix IV.
Marnie S. Shaul
Associate Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Issues
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
This appendix discusses in more detail the study scope and
methodology for addressing the number of students with limited
English proficiency receiving services through schoolwide and
targeted assistance programs (provided through title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), how they are being
served, whether they are being assessed for academic purposes,
whether those assessments are in languages that enable them to
demonstrate their knowledge, and the number of bilingual teachers
serving these students.
SCOPE
To address these issues, we reviewed and analyzed the most recent
data and research available from the Department of Education, as well
as other independent sources. Among the research we reviewed were
studies of title I, studies of large-scale student academic
assessments, and studies of educational programs for students with
limited English proficiency.
To gain further understanding about the use of title I funding to
support the learning needs of students with limited English
proficiency, we visited 10 school districts in five states--Arizona,
Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Texas. The school districts
we visited are the Phoenix Elementary and Paradise Valley School
Districts, Arizona; Cicero and Rockford Public Schools, Illinois; Lee
and Stanly County Public Schools, North Carolina; Monroe and
Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Florida; and New Braunfels and San
Antonio Independent School Districts, Texas. Further information on
the school districts we visited is contained in appendix II.
METHODOLOGY
We reviewed numerous studies that included information on title I
programs to determine not only the number of students with limited
English proficiency participating in programs, but also to determine
the types of educational services these students receive, the
qualifications of their teachers, and the potential for excluding
these students from academic assessments. For further information on
the participation of students with limited English proficiency in
large-scale academic assessments, we reviewed two independent
studies: the most recent annual survey of state student assessment
programs conducted by the Council of Chief State School Officers, and
a 1999 report on civil rights prepared by the Citizen's Commission on
Civil Rights. A bibliography of the studies we used for this report
is provided following appendix IV.
To provide additional information on how school districts are serving
students with limited English proficiency, we conducted site reviews
in five states, visiting two school districts in each state. Four of
the states selected are among those with the highest numbers of
students with limited English proficiency in the nation--Florida,
Texas, Illinois, and Arizona. The fifth state--North Carolina--is
among those states experiencing the most rapid growth in the number
of students with limited English proficiency. In each state, with
the exception of North Carolina, we selected one school district with
a high concentration (greater than 10 percent) of students with
limited English proficiency and one school district with a lower
concentration (less than 10 percent).\22 We excluded districts that
received no title I funding in school year 1998-99. We visited
schools that had funded schoolwide programs with title I, as well as
schools that used title I to fund programs targeted specifically to
educationally disadvantaged students. Where possible, we interviewed
district and school officials and teachers. Where school was in
session, we observed instructional programs for students with limited
English proficiency, including subject area instruction in their
native language and intensive English language instruction.
--------------------
\22 In North Carolina, we did not visit any school district with a
concentration greater than 10 percent. Instead, we visited Lee
County, which had a concentration of 8 percent of students with
limited English proficiency.
SCHOOL DISTRICTS VISITED
========================================================== Appendix II
Arizona Florida Illinois North Carolina Texas
-------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------ -------------------- ----------------------
Paradise
Phoenix Valley Miami-Dade Monroe Lee Stanly New San
Characteristic Elementary Unified County County Cicero Rockford County County Braunfels Antonio
------------------------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- ---------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Type of district Urban Suburban Urban Rural Urban Urban Suburban Rural Rural Urban
Total enrollment k-12 (unless 9,020 (k-8) 32,900 352,595 9,482 11,000 8,667 10,088 5,800 59,714
indicated otherwise) (includes (includes (pre-k- 28,000\a (includes
pre-k) pre-k) 8) pre-k)
Number of schools 16 40 309 12 15 48 12 20 10 89
% students with limited 45 4 13 5 47 6 8 3 7 15
English proficiency
No. of non-English languages 13 27 98 23 15 45 22 15 1 1
Predominant non-English Spanish Spanish, Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Hmong Spanish Spanish
language Serbo-
Croatian,
Arabic,
Chinese
Title I funding $3.08 $1.3 million $89 million $880,000 $2.04 $4.8 $1.04 $757,944 $831,000 $23
million million million million million
% of students eligible for 94 18 24 28 60 50 41 31 38 85
free or reduced-price lunch
No. of schoolwide programs 15 1 147 3 15 21 3 2 6 84
No. of targeted assistance 1 6 Private 3 0 0 5 8 0 0
programs schools
only
Title I funding used to Yes None Little\b Little\b Little\b None Little\b Little\b Little\b Little\b
provide special English-
language instruction to
students with limited English
proficiency?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data are for school year 1998-99.
\a Estimated enrollment.
\b Less than 20 percent of the title I funding was used to support
English-language instruction.
GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================= Appendix III
GAO CONTACTS
Eleanor L. Johnson, (202) 512-7209
Virginia Vanderlinde, (206) 287-4823
STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In addition to those named above, Susan T. Chin, Pamela Vines,
Dianne Whitman-Miner, Dianne Murphy-Blank, and Stan Stenersen made
key contributions to this report.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
=========================================================== Appendix 0
Council of Chief State School Officers. Trends in State Student
Assessment Programs. Washington, D.C.: Fall 1997.
Citizen's Commission on Civil Rights. The Test of Our Progress, The
Clinton Record on Civil Rights, ed. Corrine M. Yu and William R.
Taylor. Washington, D.C.: Rock Creek Publishing Group, 1999.
Fleischman, Howard L., and Paul J. Hopstock. Descriptive Study of
Services to Limited English Proficient Students, Vol.1 and 2.
Arlington, Va.: Development Associates, Inc., 1993.
Macias, Reynaldo F. Summary Report of the Survey of the States'
Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational
Programs and Services, 1997-98. Washington, D.C.: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1999.
Macias, Reynaldo F. Summary Report of the Survey of the States'
Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational
Programs and Services, 1995-96. Washington, D.C.: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1998.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary,
Planning and Evaluation Service. Promising Results, Continuing
Challenges: The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I.
Washington, D.C.: 1999.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary,
Planning and Evaluation Service, Office of Bilingual Education and
Minority Languages Affairs. Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated
Study of Educational Growth and Opportunity. First Year Report on
Language Minority and Limited English Proficient Students.
Washington, D.C.: 1995.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. 1993-1994 Schools and Staffing Survey: A Profile of
Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students:
Screening Methods, Program Support and Teacher Training. Washington,
D.C.: February 1997.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary,
Planning and Evaluation Service. Study of Education Resources and
Federal Funding: Preliminary Report. Washington, D.C.: June 1999.
U.S. Department of Education. School-Level Implementation of
Standards-Based Reform: Findings From the Follow-Up Public School
Survey on Education Reform. Washington, D.C.: 1999.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Equal Educational Opportunity and
Non-Discrimination for Students with Limited English Proficiency:
Federal Enforcement of Title VI and Lau v. Nichols. Washington,
D.C.: 1997.
*** End of document. ***