GAO-06-815, No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-815 
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could 
Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English 
Proficiency' which was released on July 26, 2006. 

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

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

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

July 2006: 

No Child Left Behind Act: 

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

No Child Left Behind Act: 

GAO-06-815: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-815, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) focused attention on the 
academic achievement of more than 5 million students with limited 
English proficiency. Obtaining valid test results for these students is 
challenging, given their language barriers. This report describes (1) 
the extent to which these students are meeting annual academic progress 
goals, (2) what states have done to ensure the validity of their 
academic assessments, (3) what states are doing to ensure the validity 
of their English language proficiency assessments, and (4) how the U.S. 
Department of Education (Education) is supporting states’ efforts to 
meet NCLBA’s assessment requirements for these students. To collect 
this information, we convened a group of experts and studied five 
states (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Texas). We 
also conducted a state survey and reviewed state and Education 
documents. 

What GAO Found: 

In the 2003-2004 school year, state data showed that the percentage of 
students with limited English proficiency scoring proficient on a 
state’s language arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state’s 
annual progress goals in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which 
we obtained data. Further, our review of data 49 states submitted to 
Education showed that in most states, these students generally did not 
perform as well as other student groups on state mathematics tests. 
Factors other than student knowledge, such as how a state establishes 
its annual progress goals, can influence whether states meet their 
goals. 

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

Many states are implementing new English language proficiency 
assessments in 2006 to meet NCLBA requirements; as a result, complete 
information on their validity and reliability is not yet available. In 
2006, 22 states used tests developed by one of four state consortia. 
Consortia and state officials reported taking steps to ensure the 
validity of these tests, such as conducting field tests. A 2005 
Education-funded technical review of available documentation for 17 
English language proficiency tests found insufficient documentation of 
the validity of these assessments’ results. 

Education has offered a variety of technical assistance to help states 
assess students with limited English proficiency, such as peer reviews 
of states’ academic assessments. However, Education has issued little 
written guidance to states on developing English language proficiency 
tests. Officials in one-third of the 33 states we visited or directly 
contacted told us they wanted more guidance about how to develop tests 
that meet NCLBA requirements. Education has offered states some 
flexibility in how they assess students with limited English 
proficiency, but officials in our study states told us that additional 
flexibility is needed to ensure that progress measures appropriately 
track the academic progress of these students. 

What GAO Recommends: 

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

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-815]. 

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

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Students with Limited English Proficiency Performed below Progress 
Goals in 2004 in Two-Thirds of States, but States We Studied Are 
Working to Improve Student Academic Performance: 

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

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

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

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: GAO's Group of Experts on Assessing the Academic Knowledge 
of Students with Limited English Proficiency: 

Appendix II: Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for Student Groups: 

Appendix III: Percentage of Districts Making AYP Goals for Mathematics 
for Students with Limited English Proficiency: 

Appendix IV: Proficiency Scores on Mathematics Tests for All Students 
and Students with Limited English Proficiency: 

Appendix V: Enhanced Assessment Consortia Participation: 

Appendix VI: English Language Proficiency Assessments Used in the 2005- 
2006 School Year, by State: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Selected Provisions from Title I of NCLBA: 

Table 2: Selected Provisions from Title III of NCLBA: 

Table 3: Examples of English Language Proficiency and Language Arts 
Standards for a Fifth-Grade Student: 

Table 4: Percentage of Elementary Students Scoring at the Proficient 
Level or Above on State Mathematics Assessment for Selected Student 
Groups, School Year 2003-2004: 

Table 5: Examples of Issues Relating to Assessing Students with Limited 
English Proficiency Raised in Education's Peer Review Reports: 

Table 6: Most Frequently Cited Accommodations in 42 States: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: NCLBA's Requirements for Students with Limited English 
Proficiency under Title I and Title III: 

Figure 2: School Year 2003-2004 Comparison of Percentage of Students 
with Limited English Proficiency Who Achieved Proficient Scores in 
Language Arts and Mathematics with State-Established Progress Goals: 

Figure 3: Percentage of Districts in 18 Selected States Reporting 
Adequate Yearly Progress Results in School Year 2003-2004 for Students 
with Limited English Proficiency: 

Figure 4: Use of Native Language and Alternate Assessments for Students 
with Limited English Proficiency: 

Figure 5: Type of English Language Proficiency Assessment Administered 
in 2005-2006 School Year: 

Figure 6: Movement of Students In and Out of Limited English Proficient 
Student Group and Other Student Groups: 

Figure 7: Process for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for a 
Student Group: 

Abbreviations: 

AYP: adequate yearly progress: 

CELLA: Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment: 

ELDA: English Language Development Assessment: 

ESL: English as a second language: 

GAO: Government Accountability Office: 

MWAC: Mountain West Assessment Consortium: 

NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act: 

PA EAG: Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant: 

SCASS: State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards: 

WIDA: World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 26, 2006: 

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

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

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

The Honorable Raúl Grijalva: 
House of Representatives: 

An estimated 5 million children with limited English proficiency were 
enrolled in U.S. public schools during the 2003-2004 school year, 
representing about 10 percent of the total school population. They 
speak over 400 languages, with almost 80 percent of students with 
limited English proficiency speaking Spanish. These students have 
difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English 
that interfere with their ability to successfully participate in 
school. Because of these language barriers, obtaining information on 
the academic knowledge of these students from an assessment that is 
valid and reliable (i.e., it measures what it is designed to measure in 
a consistent manner) presents challenges. As a result, students with 
limited English proficiency have historically been excluded from 
statewide assessments, leaving states and districts with little 
information about how these students are performing academically. 

In 1994, the enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act required 
states to assess these students, to the extent practicable, in the 
manner most likely to yield accurate information about their academic 
knowledge. Subsequently, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act 
of 2001 (NCLBA) with the goal of increasing academic achievement and 
closing achievement gaps among different student groups. Specifically, 
NCLBA required states to demonstrate that all students have reached the 
"proficient" level on a state's language arts and mathematics 
assessments by 2014. States are obligated to demonstrate "adequate 
yearly progress" toward this goal each year--that is, they must show 
that increasing percentages of students are reaching proficient 
achievement levels over time. Students with limited English 
proficiency, along with other targeted student groups, must separately 
meet the same academic progress goals as other students. Further, NCLBA 
required states to annually assess the English proficiency of these 
students and to demonstrate that they are making progress in becoming 
proficient in English. Because these students are defined by a 
temporary characteristic--unlike other student groups targeted in 
NCLBA--once a state determines that students with limited English 
proficiency have attained English proficiency, they are no longer 
included in the group of students with limited English proficiency, 
although Education has given states some flexibility in this area. 

Given your interest in the academic achievement of these students and 
the validity and reliability of assessments used to measure their 
performance, we are providing information on (1) the extent to which 
students with limited English proficiency are meeting adequate yearly 
progress goals and what selected states and districts are doing to 
support the improved academic performance of these students, (2) what 
states have done to ensure that results from language arts and 
mathematics assessments are valid and reliable for students with 
limited English proficiency, (3) how states are assessing English 
proficiency and what they are doing to address the validity and 
reliability of these assessment results, and (4) how the Department of 
Education (Education) is supporting states' efforts to meet NCLBA's 
assessment requirements for these students. 

To determine the extent to which students with limited English 
proficiency are meeting adequate yearly progress goals, we collected 
school year 2003-2004 state-level data for 48 states, including the 
District of Columbia. We obtained the majority of our data from state 
Web sites and, when necessary, contacted state officials for these 
data. Three states did not publish data in a format that allowed us to 
determine if students with limited English proficiency had met the 
state's adequate yearly progress goals. We also collected additional 
achievement data for 2003-2004 at the school district level from 18 
states. We chose a nonrandom sample of states with the largest 
percentage of the national population of students with limited English 
proficiency, states with the largest percentage increases in these 
students between 1990 and 2000, and included at least 2 states from 
each region represented by Education's regional education laboratories 
(with the exception of one region that included only one state). When 
district-level achievement data for school year 2003-2004 were not 
available on a state's Web site or a state had more than 500 districts, 
we requested the data directly from state officials; 2 states did not 
respond to our request for these data. We determined that the state and 
district data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We studied 5 
states in depth (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and 
Texas) to collect detailed information from state and district 
officials on their assessment practices, efforts to ensure the validity 
and reliability of their assessments for students with limited English 
proficiency, and their approaches to improve the performance of these 
students. These 5 states had relatively large percentages of students 
with limited English proficiency or had experienced large increases in 
their populations of these students. In addition, we selected these 
particular states to ensure variation in geography, types of English 
language proficiency tests used, and use of different approaches to 
assessing the content knowledge of this student group. To obtain 
information on the assessments used by other states, we reviewed 
accountability workbooks and other documents that states submit to 
Education, available reports from state monitoring visits conducted by 
Education, and available peer review reports from 38 states on their 
assessment and accountability systems. In addition to studying 5 
states, we directly contacted officials in 28 states to confirm what 
English language proficiency assessment they planned to administer in 
2005-2006 and to discuss what guidance Education had provided regarding 
these assessments. We also interviewed officials from major test 
development companies, from state consortia that are developing English 
language proficiency assessments, and from Education. To assess state 
efforts to ensure the validity and reliability of their assessments, we 
reviewed national assessment standards developed by professional 
organizations and convened a group of experts to discuss states' 
efforts to develop and implement valid and reliable academic 
assessments for students with limited English proficiency (see app. I 
for more information about these experts). Finally, we obtained 
information from the 50 states and the District of Columbia on their 
use of native language assessments using a short e-mail survey. We 
conducted our review between June 2005 and June 2006 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

In school year 2003-2004, state data showed that the percentage of 
students with limited English proficiency scoring proficient on a 
state's language arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state's 
annual progress goals in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which 
we obtained data. To help these students progress academically, state 
and district officials in the 5 states we visited reported using a 
variety of strategies, including training teachers to incorporate 
language development into academic classes. Further, our review of data 
49 states submitted to Education showed that the performance of 
students with limited English proficiency on states' mathematics 
assessments for elementary school students was lower than that of the 
total student population in all of these states but 1. Although the 
student groups are not mutually exclusive, in most of the 49 states, 
the performance of students with limited English proficiency was 
generally lower than that of other groups, such as economically 
disadvantaged students. Factors other than student academic knowledge, 
however, can influence whether states and districts meet their academic 
progress goals for students with limited English proficiency, such as 
how a state establishes its annual progress goals. To support improved 
academic progress for these students, district and state officials we 
spoke with in our 5 study states reported using strategies similar to 
those considered good practices for all students. In particular, they 
cited providing teacher training focused on these students, having 
school leadership focused on their needs and using data to target 
interventions as key to the success of these students. 

For assessments of academic knowledge in language arts and mathematics, 
we found that our 5 study states have taken some steps to address the 
specific challenges associated with assessing students with limited 
English proficiency. Although officials in these states reported taking 
steps to follow generally accepted test development procedures to 
ensure the validity and reliability of results from these assessments 
for the general student population, these assessments may not provide 
valid results for students with limited English proficiency. Our group 
of experts expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing 
these students in a valid and reliable manner, noting that states are 
not taking all the critical steps needed to do so. Although states have 
been required to include these students in their assessments since 
1994, Education's recent peer reviews of 38 states cited 25 for not 
providing sufficient evidence on the validity or reliability of results 
for students with limited English proficiency. In 1 state, for example, 
procedures to develop test questions did not include an adequate check 
for language biases. To increase the validity and reliability of 
assessment results for this population, most states offered 
accommodations, such as offering extra time to complete the test and 
using a bilingual dictionary. While most states offered some 
accommodations, our experts indicated that research is lacking on what 
specific accommodations are appropriate for students with limited 
English proficiency. Our survey of states and review of state documents 
found that 16 states used statewide native language assessments for 
some grades and 13 states used statewide alternate assessments (such as 
portfolios of classroom work) in 2005 to better accommodate certain 
students with limited English proficiency. While such assessments may 
improve the validity of test scores, our group of experts noted that 
developing native language and alternate assessments requires resources 
and expertise that not all states have. Further, our experts told us 
that native language assessments may not provide valid results for 
students who are not receiving instruction in their native language. In 
addition, developing assessments in all languages spoken by students 
with limited English proficiency would likely not be practicable for 
most states. 

With respect to English language proficiency assessments, many states 
are still in the preliminary phases of developing and administering new 
assessments to measure students' progress in learning English, as 
required by NCLBA; as a result, complete information on the validity 
and reliability of these assessments is not yet available. To assess 
these students in the 2005-2006 school year, 22 states used new 
assessments developed by one of four state consortia; 8 states used 
customized, off-the-shelf assessments offered by testing companies; 14 
states used off-the-shelf assessments; and 7 states used state- 
developed assessments. While a few states already had the required 
English language proficiency assessments in place, others will be 
administering these assessments for the first time in 2006; as a 
result, states and test developers are still collecting evidence to 
document the validity and reliability of the results for most of these 
tests. An Education-funded study by a national education research 
organization reviewed the available documentation for the English 
language proficiency assessments used by 33 states in the 2005-2006 
school year and found insufficient documentation on the validity and 
reliability of results from these assessments. 

Education has offered states support and technical assistance in a 
variety of ways to help them appropriately assess students with limited 
English proficiency, such as providing training, conducting peer 
reviews of states' academic assessments, and providing flexibility in 
assessing these students. However, Education has issued little written 
guidance to states on developing English language proficiency 
assessments that meet NCLBA's requirements and on tracking the progress 
of students in acquiring English. Officials in about one-third of the 
33 states we visited or contacted told us that they were uncertain 
about Education's requirements for the new English language proficiency 
assessments and that they wanted more guidance. In addition, our group 
of experts reported that some states need more assistance to develop 
language arts and mathematics assessments that provide valid measures 
of the academic knowledge of this group of students. To support states' 
efforts to incorporate these students into their accountability systems 
for academic performance, Education has offered states some 
flexibilities in how they track progress goals for these students. For 
example, students who have been in the United States for less than 1 
year do not have to be assessed for language arts. However, several 
state and district officials in the 5 states we studied told us that 
additional flexibility, such as excluding students from testing for a 
longer period, is needed to ensure that adequate yearly progress 
measures accurately track the academic progress of these students. 

To help states improve their assessment of students with limited 
English proficiency, we are recommending that the Secretary of 
Education (1) support additional research on accommodations, (2) 
identify and provide additional technical support states need to ensure 
the validity and reliability of academic assessments for these 
students, (3) publish more detailed guidance on assessing the English 
language proficiency of these students, and (4) explore ways to provide 
additional flexibility with respect to measuring annual progress for 
these students. In its comments, Education generally agreed with our 
recommendations. 

Background: 

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

Several approaches are available to allow students to demonstrate their 
academic knowledge while they are becoming proficient in English, 
although each poses challenges. First, a state can offer assessments in 
a student's native language. However, vocabulary in English is not 
necessarily equivalent in difficulty to the vocabulary in another 
language. As a result, a test translated from English may not have the 
same level of difficulty as the English version. If a state chooses to 
develop a completely different test in another language instead of 
translating the English version, the assessment should measure the same 
standards and reflect the same level of difficulty as the English 
version of the test to ensure its validity. Second, states can also 
offer accommodations, such as providing extra time to take a test, 
allowing the use of a bilingual dictionary, reading test directions 
aloud in a student's native language, or administering the test in a 
less distracting environment. Accommodations alter the way a regular 
assessment is administered, with the goal of minimizing the language 
impediments faced by students with limited English proficiency; they 
are intended to level the playing field without providing an unfair 
advantage to these students. Finally, states can use alternate 
assessments that measure the same things as the regular assessment 
while minimizing the language burden placed on the student. For 
example, an alternate assessment can be a traditional standardized test 
that uses simplified English or relies more on pictures and diagrams. 
It can also be a portfolio of a student's class work that demonstrates 
academic knowledge. In either case, studies would be needed to 
demonstrate that the alternate assessment is equivalent to the regular 
assessment. 

NCLBA Requirements: 

Title I of NCLBA seeks to ensure that all children have a fair and 
equal opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and become 
proficient in academic subjects. It requires states to administer tests 
in language arts and mathematics to all students in certain grades and 
to use these tests as the primary means of determining the annual 
performance of states, districts, and schools. These assessments must 
be aligned with the state's academic standards--that is, they must 
measure how well a student has demonstrated his or her knowledge of the 
academic content represented in these standards. States are to show 
that increasing percentages of students are reaching the proficient 
level on these state tests over time. NCLBA also requires that students 
with limited English proficiency receive reasonable accommodations and 
be assessed, to the extent practicable, in the language and form most 
likely to yield accurate data on their academic knowledge. Somewhat 
similar versions of these provisions, such as reporting testing results 
for different student groups, had been included in legislation enacted 
in 1994. One new NCLBA requirement was for states to annually assess 
the English language proficiency of students identified as having 
limited English proficiency. Table 1 summarizes some key Title I 
provisions from NCLBA. 

Table 1: Selected Provisions from Title I of NCLBA: 

State academic assessments; 
Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, states must implement annual, 
high-quality state assessments in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 
and at least once in high school.[A] These assessments must be aligned 
with challenging state academic standards and must be "consistent with 
relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards 
for such assessments" and used in ways that are valid and reliable. 
States must provide for the participation of all students, including 
those with limited English proficiency. 

Academic assessment provisions related to students with limited English 
proficiency; 
Students with limited English proficiency are to be assessed in a valid 
and reliable manner. In addition, they must be provided with reasonable 
accommodations and be assessed, to the extent practicable, "in the 
language and form most likely to yield accurate data" on their academic 
knowledge. In addition, for language arts, students who have been in 
U.S. schools for 3 years or more generally must be assessed in English. 

Adequate yearly progress; 
States must set annual goals that lead to all students achieving 
proficiency in language arts and mathematics by 2014. To be deemed as 
having made adequate yearly progress for a given year, each district 
and school must show that the requisite percentage of each designated 
student group, as well as the student population as a whole, met the 
state proficiency goal (that is, the percentage of students who have 
achieved the proficient level on the state's assessments). Schools must 
also show that at least 95 percent of students in each designated 
student group participated in these assessments. Further, schools must 
also demonstrate that they have met state targets on other academic 
indicators--graduation rates in high school or attendance or other 
measures in elementary and middle schools. Alternatively, a district or 
school can make adequate yearly progress through the "safe harbor" 
provision, if the percentage of students in a group considered not 
proficient decreased by at least 10 percent from the preceding year and 
the group made progress on one of the state's other academic 
indicators. 

Actions when adequate yearly progress not achieved; 
Schools that receive funding under Title I of NCLBA must take specified 
actions if they do not meet state progress goals. Specifically, schools 
that do not make adequate yearly progress for 2 consecutive years or 
more are identified for improvement and must, among other things, offer 
parents an opportunity to transfer students to another school and 
provide supplemental services (e.g., tutoring). Those that miss the 
annual goals for additional years are identified for successive stages 
of intervention, including corrective action and restructuring. 

State English language proficiency assessments; 
States must annually assess the English language proficiency of all 
students with limited English proficiency, measuring students' oral 
language, reading, and writing skills in English. 

Source: Pub. L. No. 107-110. 

[A] Beginning in school year 2007-2008, states must implement similar 
assessments in science. 

[End of table] 

Accurately assessing the academic knowledge of students with limited 
English proficiency has become more critical because NCLBA designated 
specific groups of students for particular focus. These four groups are 
students who (1) are economically disadvantaged, (2) represent major 
racial and ethnic groups, (3) have disabilities, and (4) are limited in 
English proficiency. These groups are not mutually exclusive, so that 
the results for a student who is economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, 
and has limited English proficiency could be counted in all three 
groups. States and school districts are required to measure the 
progress of all students in meeting academic proficiency goals, as well 
as to measure separately the progress of these designated groups. To be 
deemed as having made adequate yearly progress, generally each district 
and school must show that each of these groups met the state 
proficiency goal (that is, the percentage of students who have achieved 
the proficient level on the state's assessments) and that at least 95 
percent of students in each designated group participated in these 
assessments. 

Although NCLBA placed many new requirements on states, states have 
broad discretion in many key areas. States establish their academic 
content standards and then develop their own tests to measure the 
academic content students are taught in school. States also set their 
own standards for what constitutes proficiency on these assessments. In 
addition, states set their own annual progress goals for the percentage 
of students achieving proficiency, using guidelines outlined in 
NCLBA.[Footnote 1] 

Title III of NCLBA focuses specifically on students with limited 
English proficiency, with the purpose of ensuring that these students 
attain English proficiency and meet the same academic content standards 
all students are expected to meet. This title established new 
requirements intended to hold states and districts accountable for 
student progress in attaining English proficiency. It requires states 
to establish goals to demonstrate, among other things, annual increases 
in (1) students making progress in learning English and (2) students 
attaining English proficiency. Specifically, states must establish 
English language proficiency standards that are aligned with a state's 
academic content standards. The purpose of these alignment requirements 
is to ensure that students are acquiring the academic language they 
will need to successfully participate in the classroom. Education also 
requires that a state's English language proficiency assessment be 
aligned to its English language proficiency standards. While NCLBA 
requires states to administer academic assessments to students in 
specific grades, it requires states to administer an annual English 
language proficiency assessment to all students with limited English 
proficiency, from kindergarten to grade 12. See table 2 for summary of 
key Title III provisions. 

Table 2: Selected Provisions from Title III of NCLBA: 

State English language proficiency standards; 
States must establish English language proficiency standards that are 
aligned with the state's challenging academic content standards. 

Tracking student progress in learning English; 
States must establish objectives for improving students' English 
proficiency in four areas: speaking, listening, reading, and 
writing.[A] States receiving grants under Title III must establish 
annual goals for increasing and measuring the progress of students with 
limited English proficiency in (1) learning English, (2) attaining 
English proficiency, and (3) meeting adequate yearly progress goals in 
attaining academic proficiency outlined in Title I. 

Actions when annual goals for students with limited English proficiency 
not met; 
Districts that receive funding under Title III are subject to certain 
consequences if they do not meet a state's annual Title III goals. If a 
district does not meet the goals for 2 consecutive years, it must 
develop an improvement plan that addresses the factors that prevented 
the district from meeting the goals. If a district does not meet the 
goals for 4 consecutive years, it must modify its curriculum and method 
of instruction or the state must determine whether to continue to fund 
the district and require the district to replace all personnel related 
to the district's inability to meet the goals. 

Source: Pub. L. No. 107-110. 

[A] Title I refers to oral language skills, which encompass listening 
and speaking. 

[End of table] 

Language arts standards define the academic skills a student is 
expected to master, while English language proficiency standards define 
progressive levels of competence in the acquisition of English 
necessary to participate successfully in the classroom. Examples of 
standards for English language proficiency and language arts are 
provided in table 3. 

Table 3: Examples of English Language Proficiency and Language Arts 
Standards for a Fifth-Grade Student: 

English language proficiency standards: The student can comprehend 
reading passages written in familiar or short sentence patterns and 
verbalize some of the main points of the passage; 
Language arts standards: The student can independently read and 
comprehend a grade- level appropriate text and write a short essay 
describing the main idea of the text. 

English language proficiency standards: The student can use acquired 
knowledge of the English language to learn and understand new 
vocabulary in context; 
Language arts standards: The student can apply knowledge of reading 
strategies to comprehend the text of the next higher level of 
difficulty. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, "Final Non-Regulatory Guidance on 
the Title III State Formula Grant Program--Standards, Assessments and 
Accountability," February 2003. 

[End of table] 

Under NCLBA, states, districts, and schools have two sets of 
responsibilities for students with limited English proficiency. As 
shown in figure 1, they are responsible for ensuring that these 
students make progress in learning English under Title III and that 
they become proficient in language arts and mathematics under Title I. 
Beginning with the 2004-2005 school year, Education is required to 
annually review whether states have made adequate yearly progress (as 
defined by the state) for each of the student groups and have met their 
objectives for increasing the number or percentage of students who 
become proficient in English. 

Figure 1: NCLBA's Requirements for Students with Limited English 
Proficiency under Title I and Title III: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, "Final Non-
Regulatory Guidance on the Title III State Formula Grant Program- 
Standards, Assessments and Accountability, February 2003. 

[End of figure] 

Test Development: 

NCLBA's emphasis on validity and reliability reflects the fact that 
these concepts are among the most important in test development. 
Validity refers to whether the test measures what it is intended to 
measure. Reliability refers to whether or not a test yields consistent 
results across time and location and among different sections of the 
test. A test cannot be considered valid if it is unreliable. The 
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing provide universally 
accepted guidance for the development and evaluation of high-quality, 
psychometrically sound assessments.[Footnote 2] They outline specific 
standards to be considered when assessing individuals with limited 
English proficiency, including (1) determining when language 
differences produce threats to the validity and reliability of test 
results, (2) providing information on how to use and interpret results 
when tests are used with linguistically diverse individuals, and (3) 
collecting the same evidence to support claims of validity for each 
linguistic subgroup as was collected for the population as a whole. 

Test development begins with determining the purpose of the test and 
the content to be measured by the test. NCLBA outlines several purposes 
of statewide assessments, including determining the yearly performance 
of schools and districts, interpreting individual student academic 
needs, and tracking the achievement of several groups of students. 
NCLBA requires that the content of statewide assessments reflects state 
standards in language arts and mathematics, but the specific skills 
measured can vary from state to state. For example, a language arts 
assessment could measure a student's knowledge of vocabulary or ability 
to write a persuasive essay. Variations in purpose and content affect 
test design, as well as the analyses necessary to determine validity 
and reliability. 

After determining the purpose and content of the test, developers 
create test specifications, which delineate the format of the questions 
and responses, as well as the scoring procedures. Specifications may 
also indicate additional information, such as the intended difficulty 
of questions, the student population that will take the test, and the 
procedures for administering the test. These specifications 
subsequently guide the development of individual test questions. The 
quality of the questions is usually ascertained through review by 
knowledgeable educators and statistical analyses based on a field test 
of a sample of students--ideally the sample is representative of the 
overall target student population so the results will reflect how the 
questions will function when the test is administered to the 
population. These reviews typically evaluate a question's quality, 
clarity, lack of ambiguity, and sometimes its sensitivity to gender or 
cultural issues; they are intended to ensure that differences in 
student performance are related to differences in student knowledge 
rather than other factors, such as unnecessarily complex language. Once 
the quality has been established, developers assemble questions into a 
test that meets the requirements of the test specifications. Developers 
often review tests after development to ensure that they continue to 
produce accurate results. 

Education's Responsibilities: 

Education has responsibility for general oversight of Titles I and III 
of NCLBA. The department's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 
oversees states' implementation of Title I requirements with respect to 
academic assessments and making adequate progress toward achieving 
academic proficiency for all students by 2014. Education's Office of 
English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic 
Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students oversees states' 
Title III responsibilities, which include administering annual English 
language proficiency assessments to students with limited English 
proficiency and demonstrating student progress in attaining English 
language proficiency. 

Students with Limited English Proficiency Performed below Progress 
Goals in 2004 in Two-Thirds of States, but States We Studied Are 
Working to Improve Student Academic Performance: 

In school year 2003-2004, the percentage of students with limited 
English proficiency reported by states as scoring proficient on a 
state's language arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state's 
annual progress goals (established for all students) in nearly two- 
thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained data.[Footnote 3] 
Further, data from state mathematics tests showed that these students 
were generally achieving lower rates of academic proficiency than the 
total student population. However, factors other than student academic 
performance can influence whether a state meets its progress goals, 
such as which students a state includes in the limited English 
proficient group and how a state establishes its annual progress goals. 
Officials in our study states reported using several common approaches, 
including providing teacher training specific to the needs of limited 
English proficient students and using data to guide instruction and 
identify areas for improvement. 

In Almost Two-Thirds of States, the Percentage of Students with Limited 
English Proficiency Achieving Proficient Scores Was Below the State's 
Annual Progress Goals: 

In nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained data, state 
data showed that the percentage of students with limited English 
proficiency scoring proficient on language arts and mathematics tests 
was below the annual progress goal set by the state for school year 
2003-2004. Students with limited English proficiency met academic 
progress goals in language arts and mathematics in 17 states.[Footnote 
4] In 31 states, state data indicated that these students missed the 
goals either for language arts or for both language arts and 
mathematics (see fig. 2). In 21 states, the percentage of proficient 
students in this group was below both the mathematics and the language 
arts proficiency goals. See appendix II for information on how adequate 
yearly progress measures are calculated. 

Figure 2: School Year 2003-2004 Comparison of Percentage of Students 
with Limited English Proficiency Who Achieved Proficient Scores in 
Language Arts and Mathematics with State-Established Progress Goals: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: State 2003-2004 report cards available on state Web sites or 
data provided by state officials. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[End of figure] 

We also obtained additional data from 18 states to determine whether 
districts were meeting annual progress goals for students with limited 
English proficiency in school year 2003-2004.[Footnote 5] In 14 of the 
18 states, however, we found that less than 40 percent of the districts 
in each state reported separate results for this group of students (see 
fig. 3)[Footnote 6]. Districts only have to report progress results for 
a student group if a minimum number of students are included in the 
group[Footnote 7]. In Nebraska, for example, only 4 percent of 
districts reported progress goals for students with limited English 
proficiency. Except for Florida, Hawaii, and Nevada, less than half of 
the districts in each state reported separate results for this group of 
students. Even when districts do not have to report on students with 
limited English proficiency, however, the test scores for these 
students are included in the state's overall progress measures. 

Figure 3: Percentage of Districts in 18 Selected States Reporting 
Adequate Yearly Progress Results in School Year 2003-2004 for Students 
with Limited English Proficiency: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of district report cards and district data 
provided by state officials. 

Notes: If a district reported annual progress results for students with 
limited English proficiency in either language arts proficiency or 
mathematics proficiency, or both, we considered that the district 
reported adequate yearly progress results for the student group. 

Hawaii has only one school district. Since the state reported separate 
results for students with limited English proficiency, it has been 
included as 100 percent of districts reporting separate results for 
these students. 

[End of figure] 

For those districts that reported results for students with limited 
English proficiency, district-level data showed that most districts in 
13 of the 18 states met their mathematics progress goals for these 
students. For example, 67 percent of reporting districts in Nebraska 
and 99 percent of reporting districts in Texas met the state's goals. 
In 4 states, less than half of the districts reporting results for 
these students met the state mathematics progress goals. Specifically, 
26 percent of Alaska districts, 33 percent of Nevada districts, 48 
percent of Oregon districts, and 48 percent of Florida districts met 
these goals. (See app. III for results from each of the 18 states.) 

In addition to looking at whether students with limited English 
proficiency met annual progress goals at the state and district level, 
we also examined achievement levels on state assessments for this group 
of students compared with the total student population (which also 
includes students with limited English proficiency). Looking at 
mathematics results reported by 49 states to Education, for example, in 
all but one state, we found that a lower percentage of students with 
limited English proficiency at the elementary school level achieved 
proficient scores, compared to the total student population in school 
year 2003-2004 (see app. IV for the results reported by the 49 states). 
Twenty-seven states reported that the total student population 
outperformed students with limited English proficiency by 20 percentage 
points or more. The differences among groups in the percentage of 
students achieving proficient scores varied across states. South 
Dakota, for example, reported a large achievement gap, with 37 percent 
of limited English proficient students scoring at the proficient level, 
compared to 78 percent for the entire student population. The gap was 
less pronounced in Texas, where 75 percent of students with limited 
English proficiency achieved proficient scores on the mathematics 
assessment, while 85 percent of the total student population did. In 
Louisiana, these students performed about the same as the total student 
population, with 58 percent of limited English proficient students 
scoring at the proficient level on the elementary mathematics 
assessment, compared to 57 percent of the total student population. 

We also found that, in general, a lower percentage of students with 
limited English proficiency achieved proficient test scores than other 
selected student groups (see table 4). All of the 49 states reported 
that these students achieved lower rates of proficiency than white 
students.[Footnote 8] The performance of limited English proficient 
students relative to the other student groups varied. In 37 states, for 
example, economically disadvantaged students outperformed students with 
limited English proficiency, while students with disabilities 
outperformed these students in 14 states. In 12 states, all the 
selected student groups outperformed students with limited English 
proficiency. 

Table 4: Percentage of Elementary Students Scoring at the Proficient 
Level or Above on State Mathematics Assessment for Selected Student 
Groups, School Year 2003-2004: 

States: Ala; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 53; 
Students with Disabilities: 31; 
African-American: 58; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 62; 
Hispanic: 61; 
White: 81. 

States: Alaska; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 40; 
Students with Disabilities: 36; 
African-American: 50; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 50; 
Hispanic: 63; 
White: 77. 

States: Ariz.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 32; 
Students with Disabilities: 31; 
African-American: 46; 
Economically Disadvantaged: data not available; 
Hispanic: 44; 
White: 72. 

States: Ark.[B]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 49; 
Students with Disabilities: 24; 
African-American: 38; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 53; 
Hispanic: 56; 
White: 74. 

States: Calif; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 33; 
Students with Disabilities: 24; 
African-American: 28; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 33; 
Hispanic: 33; 
White: 61. 

States: Colo.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 76; 
Students with Disabilities: 61; 
African-American: 74; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 79; 
Hispanic: 79; 
White: 94. 

States: Conn; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 47; 
Students with Disabilities: 49; 
African-American: 69; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 61; 
Hispanic: 61; 
White: 88. 

States: Del.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 70; 
Students with Disabilities: 47; 
African-American: 61; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 67; 
Hispanic: 74; 
White: 87. 

States: D.C; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 34; 
Students with Disabilities: 14; 
African-American: 49; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 48; 
Hispanic: 57; 
White: 89. 

States: Fla; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 48; 
Students with Disabilities: 39; 
African-American: 44; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 52; 
Hispanic: 60; 
White: 74. 

States: Ga; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 53; 
Students with Disabilities: 46; 
African-American: 65; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 66; 
Hispanic: 67; 
White: 84. 

States: Hawaii[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 9; 
Students with Disabilities: 6; 
African-American: 19; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 18; 
Hispanic: 16; 
White: 36. 

States: Idaho; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 62; 
Students with Disabilities: 55; 
African-American: 69; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 76; 
Hispanic: 68; 
White: 87. 

States: Ill.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 53; 
Students with Disabilities: 57; 
African-American: 54; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 61; 
Hispanic: 64; 
White: 89. 

States: Ind.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 47; 
Students with Disabilities: 40; 
African-American: 54; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 60; 
Hispanic: 60; 
White: 75. 

States: Iowa; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 49; 
Students with Disabilities: 39; 
African-American: 46; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 62; 
Hispanic: 56; 
White: 80. 

States: Kans; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 58; 
Students with Disabilities: 67; 
African-American: 61; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 70; 
Hispanic: 65; 
White: 84. 

States: Ky.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 32; 
Students with Disabilities: 29; 
African-American: 28; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 36; 
Hispanic: 38; 
White: 51. 

States: La; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 58; 
Students with Disabilities: 30; 
African-American: 40; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 48; 
Hispanic: 62; 
White: 74. 

States: Maine; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 10; 
Students with Disabilities: 13; 
African-American: 15; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 20; 
Hispanic: 20; 
White: 33. 

States: Md; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 39; 
Students with Disabilities: 39; 
African-American: 52; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 51; 
Hispanic: 59; 
White: 83. 

States: Mass; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 22; 
Students with Disabilities: 20; 
African-American: 20; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 22; 
Hispanic: 19; 
White: 49. 

States: Mich; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 59; 
Students with Disabilities: 42; 
African-American: 51; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 57; 
Hispanic: 58; 
White: 77. 

States: Minn.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 38; 
Students with Disabilities: 45; 
African-American: 39; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 52; 
Hispanic: 45; 
White: 77. 

States: Miss; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 79; 
Students with Disabilities: 61; 
African-American: 69; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 72; 
Hispanic: 87; 
White: 91. 

States: Mo; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 30; 
Students with Disabilities: 24; 
African-American: 24; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 28; 
Hispanic: 29; 
White: 45. 

States: Mont; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 15; 
Students with Disabilities: 22; 
African-American: 32; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 33; 
Hispanic: 36; 
White: 49. 

States: Nebr; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 73; 
Students with Disabilities: 65; 
African-American: 72; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 79; 
Hispanic: 80; 
White: 90. 

States: Nev.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 22; 
Students with Disabilities: 22; 
African-American: 27; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 32; 
Hispanic: 32; 
White: 57. 

States: N.H.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 57; 
Students with Disabilities: 61; 
African-American: 72; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 71; 
Hispanic: 67; 
White: 85. 

States: N.J; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 47; 
Students with Disabilities: 46; 
African-American: 50; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 54; 
Hispanic: 59; 
White: 81. 

States: N.Mex; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 36; 
Students with Disabilities: 31; 
African-American: 50; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 47; 
Hispanic: 49; 
White: 72. 

States: N.C; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 86; 
Students with Disabilities: 75; 
African-American: 88; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 89; 
Hispanic: 90; 
White: >95. 

States: N.Dak; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 30; 
Students with Disabilities: 38; 
African-American: 45; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 52; 
Hispanic: 47; 
White: 68. 

States: Ohio; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 48; 
Students with Disabilities: 38; 
African-American: 39; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 48; 
Hispanic: 51; 
White: 72. 

States: Okla.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 41; 
Students with Disabilities: 23; 
African-American: 38; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 46; 
Hispanic: 47; 
White: 61. 

States: Oreg.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 61; 
Students with Disabilities: 57; 
African-American: 71; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 73; 
Hispanic: 63; 
White: 86. 

States: Pa.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 34; 
Students with Disabilities: 27; 
African-American: 30; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 42; 
Hispanic: 38; 
White: 70. 

States: R.I; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 23; 
Students with Disabilities: 34; 
African-American: 32; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 36; 
Hispanic: 31; 
White: 60. 

States: S.C; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 16; 
Students with Disabilities: 16; 
African-American: 19; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 22; 
Hispanic: 24; 
White: 49. 

States: S.Dak; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 37; 
Students with Disabilities: 48; 
African-American: 56; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 65; 
Hispanic: 62; 
White: 83. 

States: Tex; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 75; 
Students with Disabilities: 76; 
African-American: 75; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 80; 
Hispanic: 81; 
White: 93. 

States: Utah; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 53; 
Students with Disabilities: 43; 
African-American: 56; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 71; 
Hispanic: 52; 
White: 78. 

States: Vt; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 67; 
Students with Disabilities: 37; 
African-American: 51; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 58; 
Hispanic: data not available; 
White: 73. 

States: Va.[A]; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 84; 
Students with Disabilities: 74; 
African-American: 77; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 79; 
Hispanic: 84; 
White: 92. 

States: Wash; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 27; 
Students with Disabilities: 29; 
African-American: 38; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 44; 
Hispanic: 39; 
White: 66. 

States: W.Va; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 68; 
Students with Disabilities: 33; 
African-American: 53; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 64; 
Hispanic: 68; 
White: 70. 

States: Wisc; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 50; 
Students with Disabilities: 51; 
African-American: 45; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 56; 
Hispanic: 53; 
White: 80. 

States: Wyo; 
Students with Limited English Proficiency: 15; 
Students with Disabilities: 21; 
African-American: 25; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 29; 
Hispanic: 24; 
White: 42. 

States: Number of states where students with limited English 
proficiency had lower proficiency levels than this group (bolded 
numbers); 
Students with Disabilities: 14; 
African-American: 28; 
Economically Disadvantaged: 37; 
Hispanic: 41; 
White: 49. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2003-04 school year. 

Notes: Bolded numbers indicate when the percentage of students in a 
group achieving proficient scores is greater than the percentage of 
students with limited English proficiency achieving proficient scores. 

Student groups are not mutually exclusive, so that results for a 
student who is both Hispanic and economically disadvantaged appear in 
both groups. 

New York and Tennessee did not provide assessment data in their State 
Consolidated Performance Reports for the 2003-2004 school year. 

[A] Most states reported assessment data for students in the fourth 
grade. States marked with this superscript reported on some other grade 
at the elementary school level, usually either third grade or fifth 
grade. 

[B] The percentages for Arkansas do not include those students with 
limited English proficiency or students with disabilities who were 
considered proficient based on the state's portfolio assessment. 

[End of table] 

Factors beyond Student Performance Influence Progress Measures Reported 
by States: 

Factors beyond student performance can influence the number of states, 
districts, and schools meeting progress goals for students with limited 
English proficiency. One factor that can affect a state or district's 
ability to meet progress goals for this student group is the criteria 
states use to determine which students are counted as limited English 
proficient. Some states define limited English proficiency so that 
students may be more likely to stay in the group for a longer time, 
giving them more of an opportunity to develop the language skills 
necessary to demonstrate their academic knowledge on state academic 
assessments administered in English. On the basis of our review of 
state accountability plans, we found that some states removed students 
from the group after they have achieved proficiency on the state's 
English language proficiency assessment, while other states continued 
to include these students until they met additional academic 
requirements, such as achieving proficient scores on the state's 
language arts assessment. A number of states measured adequate yearly 
progress for students with limited English proficiency by including 
test scores for students for a set period of time after they were 
considered proficient in English, following Education's policy 
announcement in February 2004 allowing such an approach. 

How rigorously a state defines the proficient level of academic 
achievement can also influence the ability of states, districts, and 
schools to meet their progress goals. States with less rigorous 
definitions of proficiency are more likely to meet their progress goals 
for students with limited English proficiency or any other student 
group than states with more stringent definitions. Comparing the 
performance of students from different states on a nationally 
administered assessment suggests that states differ in how rigorously 
they define proficiency. For example, eighth-grade students in Colorado 
and Missouri achieved somewhat similar scores on the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics in 2003.[Footnote 9] 
Specifically, 34 percent of Colorado students scored proficient or 
above on this national assessment compared to 28 percent of Missouri 
students. On their own state assessments in 2003, however, 67 percent 
of Colorado students scored proficient or above, compared to just 21 
percent in Missouri.[Footnote 10] These results may reflect, among 
other things, a difference in the level of rigor in the tests 
administered by these states. However, they may also be due in part to 
differences in what the national test measures versus what each of the 
state tests measure. 

The likelihood of a state, district, or school meeting its annual 
progress goals also depends, in part, on the proficiency levels of its 
students when NCBLA was enacted, as well as how the state sets its 
annual goals. States vary significantly in the percentage of students 
scoring at the proficient level on their academic assessments, so that 
states with lower proficiency levels must, on average, establish larger 
annual increases in proficiency levels to meet the 2014 goal. Some 
states planned for large increases every 2 to 3 years, while others set 
smaller annual increases. States that established smaller annual 
increases in their initial proficiency goals may be more likely to meet 
their progress goals at this time, compared with states that set larger 
annual increases. 

The use of statistical procedures, such as confidence intervals, can 
also affect whether a state, district, or school meets its progress 
goals. Education officials said that states use such procedures to 
improve the reliability of determinations about the performance of 
districts. According to some researchers, such methods may improve the 
validity of results because they help to account for the effect of 
small group sizes and year-to-year changes in student 
populations.[Footnote 11] Most states currently use some type of 
confidence interval to determine if a state or district has met its 
progress goals, according to the Center on Education Policy.[Footnote 
12] A confidence interval establishes a range of proficiency levels 
around a state's annual progress goal.[Footnote 13] If the percentage 
of students with limited English proficiency scoring proficient on a 
state's academic assessments falls within that range, that group has 
made the annual progress goal. 

States and Districts We Visited Have Taken Steps to Improve Performance 
of Students with Limited English Proficiency: 

To help students with limited English proficiency progress 
academically, state and district officials in our 5 study states 
reported using somewhat similar strategies, many of which are also 
considered good practices for all students. Among the key factors cited 
by state and district officials for their success in working with this 
group were: 

* strong professional development focused on effective teaching 
strategies for students with limited English proficiency; 

* school or district leadership that focuses on the needs of these 
students, such as providing sufficient resources to meet those needs 
and establishing high academic standards for these students; 

* "data driven" decisions, such as using data strategically to identify 
students who are doing well and those who need more help, to identify 
effective instructional approaches, or to provide effective 
professional development; and: 

* efforts to work with parents to support the academic progress of 
their children. 

These approaches are similar to those used by "blue ribbon" schools-- 
schools identified by Education as working successfully with all 
students to achieve strong academic outcomes. The qualities shared by 
these blue ribbon schools include professional development related to 
classroom instruction, strong school leadership and a vision that 
emphasizes high academic expectations and academic success for all 
students, using data to target instructional approaches, and parental 
involvement. While many blue ribbon schools have a high percentage of 
disadvantaged students, including those with limited English 
proficiency, their common approaches help them achieve student outcomes 
that place them among the top 10 percent of all schools in the state or 
that demonstrate dramatic improvement. 

Officials in all 5 of our study states stressed the importance of 
providing teachers with the training they need to work effectively with 
students with limited English proficiency. For example, state officials 
in North Carolina told us that they are developing a statewide 
professional development program to train mainstream teachers to 
present academic content material so that it is more understandable to 
students with limited English proficiency and to incorporate language 
development while teaching subjects such as mathematics and science. In 
one rural North Carolina school district where students with limited 
English proficiency have only recently become a large presence, 
district officials commented that this kind of professional development 
has helped teachers become more comfortable with these students and 
given them useful strategies to work more effectively with them. 

In 4 of our study states, officials emphasized the need for strong 
school or district leadership that focuses on the needs of students 
with limited English proficiency. For example, officials in a 
California school district with a high percentage of students with 
limited English proficiency told us that these students are a district 
priority and that significant resources are devoted to programs for 
them. The district administration has instilled the attitude that 
students with limited English proficiency can meet high expectations 
and are the responsibility of all teachers. To help maintain the focus 
on these students, the district has created an English language 
development progress profile to help teachers track the progress of 
each student in acquiring English and meeting the state's English 
language development standards. 

In addition, officials in 4 of our study states attributed their 
success in working with students with limited English proficiency to 
using data strategically, for example, to identify effective practices 
and guide instruction. At one California school we visited, officials 
reviewed test scores to identify areas needing improvement for 
different classes and different student groups and to identify 
effective practices. In addition, they reviewed test data for each 
student to identify areas of weakness. If test data showed that a 
student was having trouble with vocabulary, the teacher would work in 
class to build the student's vocabulary. Similarly, officials in a New 
York school reported that they followed student test scores over 3 
years to set goals for different student groups and identify areas in 
need of improvement. 

Officials in 3 states we visited also cited the importance of involving 
parents of students with limited English proficiency in their 
children's education. In Nebraska, for example, a technical assistance 
agency implemented a family literacy program to help parents and their 
children improve their English, and also to involve parents in their 
children's education. The program showed parents how they can help 
children with their homework and the importance of reading to their 
children in their native language to develop their basic language 
skills. At a New York middle school, officials told us that they use a 
parent coordinator to establish better communication with families, 
learn about issues at home that can affect the student's academic 
performance, and help families obtain support services, if needed. 

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

For academic assessments in language arts and mathematics, officials in 
the 5 states we studied reported that they have taken some steps, such 
as reviewing test items to eliminate unnecessarily complex language, to 
address the specific challenges associated with assessing students with 
limited English proficiency. However, Education recently reviewed the 
assessment documentation of 38 states and noted some concerns related 
to using these assessments for students with limited English 
proficiency. Our group of experts also indicated that states are 
generally not taking the appropriate set of comprehensive steps to 
create assessments that produce valid and reliable results for students 
with limited English proficiency. To increase the validity and 
reliability of assessment results for this population, most states 
offered accommodations, such as providing extra time to complete the 
assessment and offering native language assessments. However, offering 
accommodations may or may not improve the validity of test results, as 
research on the appropriate use of accommodations for these students is 
lacking. In addition, native language assessments are not appropriate 
for all students with limited English proficiency and are difficult and 
expensive to develop. 

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

Officials in the 5 states we studied reported taking some steps to 
address the specific challenges associated with assessing students with 
limited English proficiency in language arts and mathematics. Officials 
in 4 of these states reported following generally accepted test 
development procedures when developing their academic assessments, 
while a Nebraska official reported that the state expects districts to 
follow such procedures when developing their tests. Test development 
involves a structured process with specific steps; however, additional 
steps and special attention to language issues are required when 
developing a test that includes students with limited English 
proficiency to ensure that the results are valid and reliable for these 
students. As the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing 
notes, for example, the test instructions or the response format may 
need to be modified to ensure that the test provides valid information 
about the skills of students with limited English proficiency. 

Officials in 2 states and at several testing companies mentioned that 
they have been focusing more on the needs of these students in recent 
years. Officials in California, New York, North Carolina, and Texas 
told us that they try to implement the principles of universal design, 
which support making assessments accessible to the widest possible 
range of students. This is done by ensuring, among other things, that 
instructions, forms, and questions are clear and not more 
linguistically complex than necessary. In addition, officials in all 5 
states we studied told us they included students with limited English 
proficiency in the field testing of assessments. North Carolina 
officials reported that they oversample for students with limited 
English proficiency to ensure that these students are adequately 
represented in the field tests. 

Another step officials in some states reported taking is assembling 
panels or committees to review test items for bias and testing data for 
bias related to a student's English proficient status. For example, 
Texas and North Carolina officials reported creating review committees 
to ensure that test items are accessible to students with limited 
English proficiency. Specifically, when developing mathematics items, 
these states try to make the language as clear as possible to ensure 
that the item is measuring primarily mathematical concepts and to 
minimize the extent to which it is measuring language proficiency. A 
mathematics word problem involving subtraction, for example, might 
refer to fish rather than barracuda. Officials in 4 of our study states 
told us they used a statistical approach to evaluate test items for 
bias against specific student groups, and three of these reported using 
it to detect bias related to students with limited English proficiency. 
However, this type of analysis can only be used when a relatively large 
number of students in the specific group is taking the test. Members of 
our expert group recommended the use of this technique for states with 
a large enough number of students with limited English proficiency; 
however, one member noted that this technique may not be appropriate if 
a state's population of students with limited English proficiency is 
diverse but is treated as homogenous in the analyses. 

Some of our study states also reported including experts on limited 
English proficiency or English as a second language (ESL) issues in the 
development and review of test items, although only 1 reported 
involving them in all aspects of test development. In North Carolina, 
for example, officials told us that ESL teachers and supervisors are 
involved in reviewing all aspects of the test development process, 
including item writing, field testing, and operational testing. Some 
state officials also told us that they included education staff 
involved with students with limited English proficiency in the 
development of assessments. 

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

Education's recent NCLBA peer reviews of 38 states[Footnote 14] found 
that 25 did not provide sufficient evidence on the validity or 
reliability of results for students with limited English proficiency, 
although states have been required to include these students in their 
assessments since 1994.[Footnote 15] For example, peer reviewers found 
that Alabama's documentation did not include sufficient evidence on the 
selection process for committee members to review test items for bias, 
noting that no evidence was provided on whether representatives for 
students with limited English proficiency were included. In Idaho, peer 
reviewers commented that the state did not report reliability data for 
student groups, including students with limited English proficiency. 
See table 5 for further examples. 

Table 5: Examples of Issues Relating to Assessing Students with Limited 
English Proficiency Raised in Education's Peer Review Reports: 

Validity: The state's item development and review procedures are 
inadequate to ensure that the assessments do not reflect unfair 
irrelevant constructs. For example, there is no empirical evidence that 
the item review process is successful in removing barriers due to 
overly complex language. Further, a statistical process to determine 
bias is evaluated only for gender and race/ethnicity; the state should 
consider using it to evaluate geographic and demographic diversity, 
such as students with limited English proficiency; 
Reliability: The state did not provide any reliability data for each 
reported subpopulation; 
Accommodations: The state provides a reasonable list of accommodations, 
but does not distinguish among those that are allowable for students 
with disabilities, and those which are allowable for students with 
limited English proficiency. The state may wish to provide separate 
lists of accommodations to support the selection of appropriate 
accommodations that are aligned with instructional approaches for 
individual students. Further, although it appears that the state has a 
system in place for monitoring the selection of accommodations for 
students with disabilities, it does not for students with limited 
English proficiency. 

Validity: The state should conduct a bias review, especially for the 
common items and the alternate assessments for students with limited 
English proficiency and students with disabilities; 
Reliability: The state does not routinely report subgroup reliability 
data; 
Accommodations: The state did not provide evidence to support the 
assertion that accommodations for students with limited English 
proficiency allow for valid inferences about these students' knowledge 
and skills. It does not appear that the state monitors availability of 
accommodations during test administration. The use of accommodations 
should be validated on the state's own student population. 

Source: GAO review of Education's peer review notes for 38 states. 

Note: This table includes examples from the categories used in 
Education's peer review process that determine if a state's assessments 
are valid, reliable, fair and accessible, and use appropriate 
accommodations. 

[End of table] 

Our group of experts indicated that states are generally not taking the 
appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create assessments that 
produce valid and reliable results for students with limited English 
proficiency and identified essential steps that should be taken. The 
group noted that no state has implemented an assessment program for 
students with limited English proficiency that is consistent with the 
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and other technical 
standards. Specifically, the group said that students with limited 
English proficiency are not defined consistently within and across 
states, which is a crucial first step to ensuring the reliability of 
test results. A reliable test should produce consistent results, so 
that students achieve similar scores if tested repeatedly. If the 
language proficiency levels of students with limited English 
proficiency are classified inconsistently, an assessment may produce 
results that appear inconsistent because of the variable 
classifications rather than actual differences in skill levels. One 
expert noted, for example, that some studies have shown that a 
student's language proficiency plays a small role in determining 
whether a student is classified as limited English proficient. 
Inconsistency in defining these students may be due to variation in how 
school districts apply state definitions. For example, according to a 
2005 study on students with limited English proficiency in California, 
state board of education guidelines suggest that districts consider a 
student's performance on the state's English language proficiency 
assessment and on the state's language arts test, a teacher evaluation 
of the student's academic performance, and parental recommendations 
when determining if a student should or should not continue to be 
considered limited English proficient. However, the study noted that 
districts interpreted and applied these factors differently.[Footnote 
16] Further, it appears that many state assessment programs do not 
conduct separate analyses for different groups of limited English 
proficient students. Our group of experts indicated that the 
reliability of a test may be different for heterogeneous groups of 
students with limited English proficiency, such as students who are 
literate in their native language and those who are not. 

Our group of experts also noted that states are not always explicit 
about whether an assessment is attempting to measure skills only (such 
as mathematics) or mathematics skills as expressed in English. 
According to the group, a fundamental issue affecting the validity of a 
test is the definition of what is being measured. Members of the group 
emphasized that approaches to ensure valid test results should vary 
based on which of these is being measured. For example, North Carolina 
officials stated that the state did not offer native language 
assessments because the state has explicitly chosen to measure student 
knowledge in English. 

The expert group emphasized that determining the validity and 
reliability of academic assessments for students with limited English 
proficiency is complicated and requires a comprehensive collection of 
evidence rather than a single analysis or review. As one expert noted, 
"you can't just do one thing and assume things are valid." In addition, 
the appropriate combination of analyses will vary from state to state, 
depending on the characteristics of the student population and the type 
of assessment. For example, because reliability of test results can 
vary based on a student's English proficiency status or a student's 
native language, states with more diverse groups of limited English 
proficient students may need to conduct additional analyses to ensure 
sufficient reliability. The group indicated that states are not 
universally using all the appropriate analyses to evaluate the validity 
and reliability of test results for students with limited English 
proficiency. Instead, our experts noted that states vary in terms of 
the particular techniques they use for this purpose, and in the extent 
to which they collect valid background data. Members indicated that 
some states may need assistance to conduct appropriate analyses that 
will offer useful information about the validity of their academic 
assessments for these students. 

Finally, our group of experts indicated that reducing language 
complexity is essential to developing valid assessments for these 
students, but expressed concern that some states and test developers do 
not have a strong understanding of universal design principles or how 
to use them to develop assessments from the beginning to eliminate 
language that is not relevant to measuring a student's knowledge of, 
for example, mathematics. Members believed that some states may need 
more information on how to implement these principles to develop 
assessments that produce valid results for students with limited 
English proficiency. 

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

The majority of states offered some accommodations to try to increase 
the validity and reliability of assessment results for students with 
limited English proficiency. These accommodations are intended to 
permit students with limited English proficiency to demonstrate their 
academic knowledge, despite their limited language ability. Our review 
of state Web sites found available documentation on accommodations for 
42 states. The number of accommodations offered varied considerably 
among states. One state, for example, offered students with limited 
English proficiency the use of a bilingual dictionary and a side-by- 
side English-Spanish version of its grade 10 mathematics test. Another 
state listed over 40 acceptable accommodations, including clarifying 
test directions in English or the student's native language, offering 
extra time, and providing responses (written or oral) in the student's 
native language. 

Our review found that the most common accommodations offered by these 
states were allowing the use of a bilingual dictionary and reading test 
items aloud in English (see table 6). In addition, they offered other 
accommodations intended to create a less distracting environment for 
students, such as administering the assessment to the student in a 
small group or individually. Some states also gave students with 
limited English proficiency extra time to complete a test to account 
for their slower reading speed and information processing time in 
English. The 5 states we studied varied in how they established and 
offered accommodations to students. For example, Texas officials 
reported working with its limited English proficiency focus group to 
develop a list of allowable accommodations, which may be offered on a 
test when they are routinely used by students in their classrooms. In 
addition, each school district has a committee to select particular 
accommodations based on the needs of individual students. California 
officials told us the state provides guidance to districts on the 
appropriate use of accommodations. However, they said that districts 
might not provide approved accommodations because of high administrator 
turnover. 

Table 6: Most Frequently Cited Accommodations in 42 States: 

Accommodation: Bilingual dictionary; 
Number of states: 32. 

Accommodation: Reading items aloud in English; 
Number of states: 32. 

Accommodation: Small group administration; 
Number of states: 29. 

Accommodation: Extra time; 
Number of states: 27. 

Accommodation: Individual administration; 
Number of states: 27. 

Accommodation: Separate location; 
Number of states: 25. 

Accommodation: Extra breaks; 
Number of states: 25. 

Accommodation: Directions in student's native language; 
Number of states: 24. 

Source: GAO review of state documentation. 

[End of table] 

According to our expert group and our review of the relevant 
literature, research is lacking on what specific accommodations are 
appropriate for students with limited English proficiency, as well as 
their effectiveness in improving the validity of assessment results. A 
2004 review of state policies found that few studies focus on 
accommodations intended to address the linguistic needs of students 
with limited English proficiency or on how accommodations affect the 
performance of students with limited English proficiency.[Footnote 17] 
In contrast, significantly more research has been conducted on 
accommodations for students with disabilities, much of it funded by 
Education. Because of this research disparity, our group of experts 
reported that some states offer accommodations to students with limited 
English proficiency based on those they offer to students with 
disabilities, without determining their appropriateness for individual 
students. Our experts noted the importance of considering individual 
student characteristics to ensure that an accommodation appropriately 
addresses the needs of the student. Other researchers have raised 
similar issues about the use of accommodations by states. 

Education's peer reviews of state academic assessments identified 
issues related to accommodations for students with limited English 
proficiency in all 38 states reviewed. For example, the reviewers noted 
that South Dakota does not clearly indicate whether students with 
limited English proficiency were provided accommodations that they do 
not regularly use in the classroom. If an accommodation is not used 
regularly in the classroom, it may not improve the validity of test 
results because the student may not be comfortable with a new 
procedure. In addition, they noted that South Dakota does not appear to 
be monitoring the use of accommodations and suggested that the state 
study accommodations to ensure that they are instructionally 
appropriate and that they improve the validity and reliability of the 
results. In Texas, the reviewers noted that the state needs to provide 
information regarding the quality and consistency of accommodations for 
students with limited English proficiency--specifically whether the 
state routinely monitors the use of accommodations for these students. 
In North Carolina, they noted a lack of evidence that the state has 
performed research on accommodations. Although conducting such research 
could provide useful information on the validity of accommodated tests, 
having each state individually study accommodations could be 
financially burdensome for them. While research on accommodations for 
this population would be useful, it does not have to be conducted 
directly by states to be applicable to a state's student population. 
Further, such research could involve short-term studies, rather than 
large-scale, longitudinal efforts. 

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

In our survey, 16 states reported that they offered statewide native 
language assessments in language arts or mathematics in some grades for 
certain students with limited English proficiency in the 2004-2005 
school year. For example, New York translated its statewide mathematics 
assessments into Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Korean, and Haitian-Creole. 
In addition, 3 states were developing or planning to develop a native 
language assessment, and several states allowed school districts to 
translate state assessments or offer their own native language 
assessments. Our group of experts told us that this type of assessment 
is difficult and costly to develop. An assessment provided in a 
student's native language is intended to remove language barriers 
students face in demonstrating their content knowledge and thereby 
improve the validity of test results. Of the 16 states that offered 
statewide native language assessments, 4 were able to provide complete 
data on the number of students taking native language assessments. 
These data indicated that relatively few students took these 
assessments. 

Our group of experts and some state officials also described the 
challenges of developing native language assessments that produce valid 
results. Members of our expert group and other experts told us that 
native language assessments are generally an effective accommodation 
only for students in specific circumstances, such as students who are 
instructed in their native language or are literate in their native 
language. In addition, our experts emphasized that developing valid 
native language assessments is challenging, time-consuming, and 
expensive. Development of a valid native language assessment involves 
more than a simple translation of the original test; in most 
situations, a process of test development and validation similar to 
that of the nontranslated test is recommended to ensure the validity of 
the test. In addition, the administration of native language 
assessments may not be practicable, for example, when only a small 
percentage of limited English students in the state speak a particular 
language or when a state's student population has many languages. 

Thirteen states offered statewide alternate assessments (such as 
reviewing a student's classroom work portfolio) in 2005 for certain 
students with limited English proficiency, based on our review of 
accountability plans for all states and the District of Columbia as of 
March 2006. We also found that 4 additional states allowed school 
districts to offer alternate assessments, while 7 states and the 
District of Columbia planned to offer alternate assessments. An 
official in Wisconsin told us that the state administers an alternate 
assessment because developing a native language assessment for its 
relatively small Spanish-speaking population would be impractical and 
the state does not have bilingual programs in the second most common 
language, Hmong (a language that is native to Southeast Asia). However, 
our group of experts noted that alternate assessments are difficult and 
expensive to develop, and may not be feasible because of the amount of 
time required for such an assessment. Members of the group also 
expressed concern about the extent to which these assessments are 
objective and comparable and can be aggregated with regular 
assessments. See figure 4 for information on which states offered 
native language or alternate assessments for students with limited 
English proficiency. 

Figure 4: Use of Native Language and Alternate Assessments for Students 
with Limited English Proficiency: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO survey and state accountability workbooks. 

[End of figure] 

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

With respect to English language proficiency assessments, many states 
implemented new tests to address NCLBA requirements, and are working to 
align them with newly required state English language proficiency 
standards. State and consortia officials reported that states are using 
assessments or test items developed by state consortia, customized 
assessments developed by testing companies, state-developed 
assessments, and off-the-shelf assessments. While a few states already 
had the required English language proficiency assessments in place, 
many states are implementing them for the first time in spring 2006; as 
a result, evidence on their validity and reliability may not be fully 
developed. 

States Are Working with Consortia and Test Developers and Individually 
to Develop New English Language Proficiency Assessments: 

Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments 
for the 2005-2006 school year to meet Education's requirement for 
states to administer English language proficiency tests that meet NCLBA 
requirements by the spring of 2006.[Footnote 18] These assessments must 
allow states to track student progress in learning English; in 
addition, Education requires that these assessments be aligned to a 
state's English language proficiency standards. According to Education 
and test development officials, prior to NCLBA, most states used off- 
the-shelf English language proficiency assessments to determine the 
placement of students in language instruction programs, but these 
assessments did not have to be aligned with standards. Education 
officials said that because many states did not have tests that met 
NCLBA requirements, the agency funded four state consortia to develop 
new assessments that were to be aligned with state standards and 
measure student progress. Officials in some states told us they have 
chosen to use these consortium-developed tests, while officials in 
other states reported developing their own tests or continuing to use 
off-the-shelf tests. Some states had only recently determined what test 
they are going to administer this year, while others may administer a 
new test in the 2006-2007 school year. Education officials noted that 
states' decisions on these tests have been in flux during this 
transition year. 

In the 2005-2006 school year, 22 states used assessments or test items 
developed by one of four state consortia, making this the most common 
approach taken by states to develop new English language proficiency 
assessments. Each of the four consortia varied somewhat in its 
development approach.[Footnote 19] For example, officials in two 
consortia reported that they examined all their member states' English 
language proficiency standards and reached consensus on core standards 
for use on the English language proficiency assessments. They also 
planned to continue working with member states in implementing their 
assessments. For example, one consortium plans to provide ongoing 
professional development to help educators understand the consortium's 
standards. In contrast, officials in the other two consortia reported 
that the consortia disbanded after developing their assessments. One 
state official told us that the state hired a contractor to customize 
the consortium-developed assessment to more closely align with state 
standards. In addition, officials in other states, such as New Mexico, 
told us they are using a combination of consortium-developed test 
items, along with items developed by another test developer. 

Fifteen states participated in one of the consortia, but officials in 
these states told us they chose not to use the assessments developed by 
the consortia in the 2005-2006 school year for a variety of reasons, 
including lack of alignment with state standards, the length of the 
assessment, and the cost of implementation. For example, Kentucky chose 
not to use the consortium assessment because of cost effectiveness 
concerns and lack of alignment with state standards. Another state 
decided not to use the consortium-developed assessment, as officials 
were concerned about its cumbersome nature and associated cost. 
Officials in some states told us they plan to use consortium-developed 
assessments in the future. For example, Florida officials reported that 
the state will use a consortium assessment in the 2006-2007 school 
year. Appendix V shows the states that participated in the consortia 
and which used consortia-developed assessments in the 2005-2006 school 
year. 

Officials in states that did not use consortia assessments told us that 
they used other approaches to develop their English language 
proficiency assessments. Eight states worked with test developers to 
augment off-the-shelf English language proficiency assessments to 
incorporate state standards. For example, Mississippi, South Dakota, 
and Wyoming are using versions of an English language proficiency 
assessment that has been augmented to align to their respective state 
standards. Officials in 14 states indicated that they are administering 
off-the-shelf assessments. These officials indicated varying degrees of 
alignment between the off-the-shelf tests being used and their state's 
English language proficiency standards; in 11 of these states, the 
assessment has not been fully aligned with state standards.[Footnote 
20] Seven states, including Texas, Minnesota, and Kansas, created their 
own English language proficiency assessments. Officials in these states 
said they typically worked with a test developer or research 
organization to create the assessments. See figure 5 and appendix VI 
for more detailed information on the English language proficiency 
assessments used by each state. 

Figure 5: Type of English Language Proficiency Assessment Administered 
in 2005-2006 School Year: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Interviews with consortia and state officials. 

[End of figure] 

Some officials in our 5 study states and 28 additional states we 
contacted to determine what English language proficiency assessment 
they planned to use in 2006 pointed to some challenges involving their 
English language proficiency assessments. Some of these state officials 
expressed concerns about using both their old and new English language 
proficiency assessments to measure student progress in learning 
English. NCLBA required states to begin tracking student progress in 
the 2002-2003 school year, before most states had implemented their new 
English language proficiency assessments. In May 2006, Education 
officials told us that states must rely on baseline results from their 
old tests and determine how results from their old tests relate to 
results from their new tests in order to track student progress since 
2003, as required by NCLBA. They noted that states may change their 
English language proficiency goals based on results from their new 
assessments, but they cannot change the initial baseline established 
with their old test. In its technical comments on this report, 
Education noted that it allows states to make such determinations in a 
variety of ways, as long as annual progress is reported. Officials in 
some states want to rely solely on data from their new tests to track 
student progress. They stated that, unlike their old tests, their new 
tests provide more accurate data on student progress because they are 
aligned to their English language proficiency standards and were 
designed to measure student progress. Officials from other states 
questioned the usefulness of conducting studies to determine the 
relationship between their old and new tests, especially in states that 
had previously used multiple English language proficiency assessments. 

Officials in a few of our study states also expressed concern about the 
appropriateness of NCLBA's requirement to assess students with limited 
English proficiency in kindergarten and the first and second grades. 
For example, Texas officials told us traditional tests do not produce 
good test results for students this young in part because of their 
limited attention spans. In addition, officials in Texas and North 
Carolina noted that English proficient students in these grades are not 
required to be assessed in the same way. 

Many States Are Still in the Process of Establishing the Validity and 
Reliability of English Language Proficiency Assessments: 

Officials in our study states and test developers we interviewed 
reported that they commonly apply generally accepted test development 
procedures in the development of English language proficiency 
assessments, but some are still in the process of documenting the 
validity and reliability of these assessments. For example, some 
evidence needed to confirm the validity and reliability of the test can 
be obtained only after the assessment has been fully administered. One 
consortium contracted with a research organization to assess the 
validity and reliability testing of its English language proficiency 
assessment. According to a consortium official, the research 
organization performed all of the standard steps that are taken to 
ensure high-quality assessments. These included piloting and field 
testing the assessment and conducting statistical modeling. An official 
from another consortium said that its test vendor is conducting basic 
psychometric research and analyzing field test data for evidence of 
reliability. California officials noted that the process for developing 
and ensuring the validity and reliability of its English language 
proficiency assessment is similar to that used for its state academic 
assessments. 

Although states have taken steps toward determining validity, 
documenting the validity and reliability of a new assessment is an 
ongoing process. A 2005 review of the documentation of 17 English 
language proficiency assessments used by 33 states in the 2005-2006 
school year found that the evidence presented on validity and 
reliability was generally insufficient.[Footnote 21] The report, which 
was funded by Education, reviewed documentation for consortium- 
developed assessments, off-the-shelf assessments, and custom-developed 
assessments for evidence of validity, reliability, and freedom from 
test bias, among other things. It found that the technical adequacy of 
English language proficiency assessments is undeveloped compared to the 
adequacy of assessments for general education. The study noted that 
none of the assessments contained "sufficient technical evidence to 
support the high-stakes accountability information and conclusions of 
student readiness they are meant to provide." 

In addition, many states are in the process of aligning these 
assessments to state English language proficiency standards, which in 
turn must be aligned to state content standards. These steps are needed 
to comply with NCLBA requirements. Alignment, which refers to the 
degree to which an assessment's items measure the content they are 
intended to measure, is critical in assuring the validity of an 
assessment. Officials in some states[Footnote 22] have expressed 
uncertainty about how to align their English language proficiency test 
with their standards for academic subjects, such as mathematics and 
science.[Footnote 23] Officials in 2 states told us that their English 
language proficiency assessments are aligned to state language arts 
standards but are not aligned to state mathematics standards, meaning 
that the assessment may not measure the language needed to succeed in a 
mathematics class. Findings from Education's Title III monitoring 
reviews of 13 states indicated that 8 states had not yet fully 
completed alignment; of these, 5 had not yet linked their English 
language proficiency and academic content standards, while 5 had not 
yet aligned their English language proficiency assessments with their 
English language proficiency standards[Footnote 24]. 

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

Education has offered states a variety of technical assistance to help 
them appropriately assess students with limited English proficiency, 
such as providing training and expert reviews of their assessment 
systems, as well as flexibility in assessing these students. However, 
Education has issued little written guidance on how states are expected 
to assess and track the English proficiency of these students, leaving 
state officials unclear about Education's expectations. To support 
states' efforts to incorporate these students into their accountability 
systems, Education has offered states some flexibilities in how they 
track progress goals for these students. However, many of the state and 
district officials we interviewed told us that the current 
flexibilities do not fully account for some characteristics of certain 
students in this student group, such as their lack of previous 
schooling. These officials indicated that additional flexibility is 
needed to ensure that the federal progress measures accurately track 
the academic progress of these students. 

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

Education offers support in a variety of ways to help states meet 
NCLBA's requirements for assessing students with limited English 
proficiency for both their language proficiency and their academic 
knowledge. Some of these efforts focus specifically on students with 
limited English proficiency, while others, such as the Title I 
monitoring visits, focus on all student groups and on broader 
compliance issues but review some assessment issues related to students 
with limited English proficiency as part of their broader purposes. The 
agency's primary technical assistance efforts have included the 
following: 

* Title I peer reviews of states' academic standards and assessment 
systems: Education is currently conducting peer reviews of the academic 
assessments that states use in measuring adequate yearly progress. 
During these reviews, three independent experts review evidence 
provided by the state about the validity and reliability of these 
assessments (including whether the results are valid and reliable for 
students with limited English proficiency) and make recommendations to 
Education about whether the state's assessment system is technically 
sufficient and meets all legal requirements. Education shares 
information from the peer review to help states address issues 
identified during the review. Education has imposed a deadline 
requiring that states receive peer review approval by June 30, 2006, 
but only 10 states have had their assessment systems fully approved by 
Education as of that date.[Footnote 25] 

* Title III monitoring visits: Education began conducting site visits 
to review state compliance with Title III requirements in 2005 and has 
visited 15 states. Education officials reported that they plan to visit 
11 more states in 2006. As part of these visits, the agency reviews the 
state's progress in developing English language proficiency assessments 
that meet NCLBA requirements. 

* Comprehensive centers: Education has contracted with 16 regional 
comprehensive centers to build state capacity to help districts that 
are not meeting their adequate yearly progress goals. The grants for 
these centers were awarded in September 2005, and the centers provide a 
broad range of assistance, focusing on the specific needs of individual 
states. At least 3 of these centers plan to assist individual states in 
developing appropriate goals for student progress in learning English. 
In 2005, Education also funded an assessment and accountability 
comprehensive center, which provides technical assistance to the 
regional comprehensive centers on issues related to the assessment of 
students, including those with limited English proficiency. 

* Ongoing technical assistance for English language proficiency 
assessments: Education has provided information and ongoing technical 
assistance to states using a variety of tools and has focused 
specifically on the development of the English language proficiency 
standards and assessments required by NCLBA. These include: 

* a semiannual review of reports states submit to Education and phone 
calls to state officials focused on state progress in developing their 
English language proficiency assessments; 

* on-site technical assistance to states regarding their English 
language proficiency assessments; 

* an annual conference focused on students with limited English 
proficiency that includes sessions on assessment issues, such as 
aligning English language proficiency and academic content standards; 

* videoconference training sessions for state officials on developing 
English language proficiency assessments; 

* providing guidance on issues related to students with limited English 
proficiency on its Web site; 

* distributing information through an electronic bulletin board and a 
weekly electronic newsletter focused on students with limited English 
proficiency; 

* disseminating information through the National Clearinghouse for 
English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 
Programs; 

* semiannual meetings and training sessions with state Title III 
directors; and: 

* responding to questions from individual states as needed. 

* Enhanced Assessment Grants: Since 2003, Education has awarded these 
grants, authorized by NCLBA, to support state activities designed to 
improve the validity and reliability of state assessments. According to 
an Education official, most of the grants up to now have funded the 
English language proficiency consortia, although some grants have been 
used to conduct research on accommodations. For grants to be awarded in 
2006, Education will give preference to projects involving 
accommodations and alternate assessments intended to increase the 
validity of assessments for students with limited English proficiency 
and students with disabilities. 

* Title I monitoring visits: As part of its monitoring visits to review 
state compliance with Title I requirements, Education reviews some 
aspects of the academic assessments administered by states, but in less 
detail than during its peer reviews. During these visits, for example, 
states may receive some feedback on how the state administers academic 
assessments to students with limited English proficiency and the 
appropriateness of accommodations offered to these students. Education 
staff also reported that they respond to questions about Title I 
requirements from individual states as needed. 

While providing states with a broad range of technical assistance and 
guidance through informal channels, Education has issued little written 
guidance on developing English language proficiency assessments that 
meet NCLBA's requirements and on tracking the progress of students in 
acquiring English. Education issued some limited nonregulatory guidance 
on NCLBA's basic requirements for English language proficiency 
standards and assessments in February 2003. However, officials in about 
one-third of the 33 states we visited or directly contacted expressed 
uncertainty about implementing these requirements. They told us that 
they would like more specific guidance from Education to help them 
develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements, generally focusing on two 
issues. First, some officials said they were unsure about how to align 
English language proficiency standards with content standards for 
language arts, mathematics, and science, as required by NCLBA. An 
official in 1 state said the state needed specific guidance on what 
Education wants from these assessments, such as how to integrate 
content vocabulary on the English language proficiency assessment 
without creating an excessively long test. In another state, officials 
explained that the state was developing its English language 
proficiency test by using an off-the-shelf test and incorporating 
additional items to align the test with the state's English language 
proficiency and academic standards. However, the state discovered that 
it had not correctly augmented the test and will consequently have to 
revise the test. Officials in this state noted that they have had to 
develop this test without a lot of guidance from Education. 

Second, some officials reported that they did not know how to use the 
different scores from their old and new English language proficiency 
assessments to track student progress. For example, an official in 1 
state said that she would like guidance from Education on how to 
measure student progress in English language proficiency using 
different tests over time. Another official was unsure if Education 
required a formal study to correlate the results from their old and new 
English language proficiency assessments, noting that more specific 
guidance would help them better understand Education's requirements. 
Without guidance and specific examples on both of these issues, some of 
these officials were concerned that they will spend time and resources 
developing an assessment that may not meet Education's requirements. 

Education officials told us that they are currently developing 
additional nonregulatory guidance on these issues, but it has not been 
finalized. They also pointed out that they have provided extensive 
technical assistance on developing English language proficiency 
standards and assessments, and have clearly explained the requirements 
to state officials at different meetings on multiple occasions. An 
Education official acknowledged that states were looking for more 
guidance on the degree of alignment required between their English 
language proficiency assessments and standards, noting that Education 
is still considering the issue. She stated that the issue would be 
addressed in the guidance it plans to issue in the future. 

With respect to academic content assessments, our group of experts 
reported that some states could use more assistance in creating valid 
academic assessments for students with limited English proficiency. 
While 4 of the 5 states we studied in depth had significant experience 
in, and multiple staff devoted to, developing language arts and 
mathematics assessments, some members of our expert group pointed out 
that the assessment departments in other states have limited resources 
and expertise, as well as high turnover. As a result, these states need 
help to conduct appropriate analyses that will offer useful information 
about the validity and reliability of their academic assessments for 
students with limited English proficiency. An Education official told 
us that the agency recently began offering technical assistance to 
states that need help addressing issues raised during their peer 
reviews. 

Our group of experts suggested several areas where states could benefit 
from additional assistance and guidance in developing academic 
assessments for students with limited English proficiency. Several 
members noted the lack of good research on what kinds of accommodations 
can help mitigate language barriers for students with limited English 
proficiency. Several experts also believed that some states need more 
information on how to implement universal design principles to develop 
assessments that produce valid results for students with limited 
English proficiency. In addition, some group members pointed out that 
developing equivalent assessments in other languages (that is, 
assessments that measure the same thing and are of equivalent 
difficulty) is challenging and that states need more information about 
how to develop such assessments, as well as examples. 

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

Education has offered states several flexibilities in tracking academic 
progress goals for students with limited English proficiency to support 
their efforts to develop appropriate accountability systems for these 
students. In a February 2004 notice, Education recognized the existence 
of language barriers that hinder the assessment of students who have 
been in the country for a short time and provided some testing 
flexibility for these students. Specifically, Education does not 
require students with limited English proficiency to participate in a 
state's language arts assessment during their first year in U.S. 
schools. In addition, while these students must take a state's 
mathematics assessment during their first year in U.S. schools, a state 
may exclude their scores in determining whether it met its progress 
goals.[Footnote 26] 

Education offered additional flexibility in its February 2004 notice, 
recognizing that limited English proficiency is a more transient 
quality than having a disability or being of a particular race. Unlike 
the other NCLBA student groups, students who achieve English 
proficiency leave the group at the point when they are more prepared to 
demonstrate their academic knowledge in English, while new students 
with lower English proficiency are constantly entering the group (see 
fig. 6). Given the group's continually changing composition, meeting 
progress goals may be more difficult than doing so for other student 
groups, especially in districts serving large numbers of students with 
limited English proficiency. To compensate for this, Education allowed 
states to include, for up to 2 years, the scores of students who were 
formerly classified as limited English proficient when determining 
whether a state met its progress goals for students with limited 
English proficiency. In addition, Education has approved requests from 
several states to permit students who have been redesignated as English 
proficient to remain in the group of students with limited English 
proficiency until they have achieved the proficient level on the 
state's language arts assessment for 1 or more years. 

Figure 6: Movement of Students In and Out of Limited English Proficient 
Student Group and Other Student Groups: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion images. 

[End of figure] 

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

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

District officials in 4 of the states we studied argued that tracking 
the progress of individual students in this group is a better measure 
of how well these students are progressing academically. Officials in 
one district pointed to a high school with a large percentage of 
students with limited English proficiency that had made tremendous 
progress with these students, doubling the percentage of students 
achieving academic proficiency. The school missed the annual progress 
target for this group by a few percentage points, but school officials 
said that the school would be considered successful if it was measured 
by how much individual students had improved in their test scores. A 
district official in another state explained that many students with 
limited English proficiency initially have very low test scores, but 
demonstrate tremendous improvement in these scores over time. In 
response to educators and policymakers who believe such an approach 
should be used for all students, Education initiated a pilot project in 
November 2005, allowing a limited number of states to incorporate 
measures of student progress over time in determining whether districts 
and schools met their annual progress goals. Even using this approach, 
however, states must still establish annual goals that lead to all 
students achieving proficient scores by 2014.[Footnote 27] 

Conclusions: 

NCLBA has focused attention on the academic performance of all 
students, especially those who have historically not performed as well 
as the general student population, such as students with limited 
English proficiency. NCLBA requires states to include these students in 
their language arts and mathematics assessments and to assess them in a 
valid and reliable manner, and states are in various stages of doing 
so. Although Education has provided some technical assistance to 
states, our group of experts and others have noted the complexity of 
developing academic assessments for these students and have raised 
concerns about the technical expertise of states to ensure the validity 
and reliability of assessment results. Using assessment results that 
are not a good measure of student knowledge is likely to lead to poor 
measures of state and district progress, thereby undermining NCLBA's 
purpose to hold schools accountable for student progress. Further, 
although most states offered these students accommodations, research on 
their appropriateness is limited. National research on accommodations 
has informed states' practices in assessing students with disabilities. 
Without similar research efforts, accommodations offered to students 
with limited English proficiency may not improve the validity of their 
test results. 

While Education has provided some support and training to states, 
officials in a number of states are still uncertain about how to comply 
with some of the more technical requirements of the new English 
language proficiency assessments required by NCLBA. State officials 
reported that they need more guidance from Education to develop these 
assessments. States have had to develop many new assessments under 
NCLBA for both English language proficiency and academic content, and 
some states may lack the technical expertise to develop assessments 
that produce valid results for students with limited English 
proficiency. Without more specific guidance outlining Education's 
requirements, states may spend time developing English language 
proficiency assessments that do not adequately track student progress 
in learning English or otherwise meet NCLBA's requirements. 

Including students with limited English proficiency in NCLBA's 
accountability framework presents unique challenges. For example, 
students who have little formal schooling may make significant progress 
in learning academic skills, but may not achieve proficiency on state 
academic assessments for several years. The movement of students into 
and out of the group also makes it more difficult for the group to meet 
state progress goals, even when these students are making academic 
progress. Education has addressed some of the unique characteristics of 
this student group and provided some flexibility in how states and 
districts are held accountable for the progress of these students. 
However, these current flexibilities may not fully account for the 
characteristics of certain students with limited English proficiency, 
such as those who have little previous formal schooling. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Education: 

1. Support additional research on appropriate accommodations for 
students with limited English proficiency and disseminate information 
on research-based accommodations to states. 

2. Determine what additional technical assistance states need with 
respect to assessing the academic knowledge of students with limited 
English proficiency and to improve the validity and reliability of 
their assessment results (such as consultations with assessment experts 
and examples of assessments targeted to these students) and provide 
such additional assistance. 

3. Publish additional guidance with more specific information on the 
requirements for assessing English language proficiency and tracking 
the progress of students with limited English proficiency in learning 
English. 

4. Explore ways to provide additional flexibilities to states in terms 
of holding states accountable for students with limited English 
proficiency. For example, among the flexibilities that could be 
considered are: 

* allowing states to include the assessment scores for all students 
formerly considered to have limited English proficiency in a state's 
annual progress results for the group of students with limited English 
proficiency, 

* extending the period during which the assessment scores for some or 
all students with limited English proficiency would not be included in 
a state's annual progress results, and: 

* adjusting how states account for recent immigrants with little formal 
schooling in their annual progress results. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 
The agency provided comments, which are reproduced in appendix VII. 
Education also provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated 
when appropriate. Education agreed with our first three 
recommendations. The department noted that it has conducted some 
research on the effectiveness of accommodations and is currently 
working with its National Research and Development Center for 
Assessment and Accountability to synthesize the existing research 
literature on the assessment of students with limited English 
proficiency. Education also explained that it has begun the process of 
identifying the additional technical assistance needs of states with 
respect to academic assessments; specifically, it will have its 
Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center conduct a needs 
assessment this fall to determine specific areas in which states need 
assistance and will provide technical assistance to address those 
areas. In addition, the department stated that it is exploring ways to 
help states assess English language proficiency. 

Education did not explicitly agree or disagree with our fourth 
recommendation. Instead, the agency commented that it has explored and 
already provided various types of flexibility regarding the inclusion 
of students with limited English proficiency in accountability systems. 
Further, Education noted that it is in the process of completing a 
regulation on flexibility for these students. However, the department 
also emphasized that all students with limited English proficiency must 
be included in school accountability systems to improve both 
instruction and achievement outcomes. Through our recommendation, we 
encourage the department to continue its efforts. 

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

If you or your staff have any questions or wish to discuss this report 
further, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or at shaulm@gao.gov. 
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Other contacts 
and major contributors are listed in appendix VIII. 

Signed by: 

Marnie S. Shaul: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: GAO's Group of Experts on Assessing the Academic Knowledge 
of Students with Limited English Proficiency: 

On January 20, 2006, GAO, with the assistance of the National Academy 
of Sciences, convened a group of experts in Davis, California, to 
discuss issues related to assessing the academic knowledge of students 
with limited English proficiency. Specifically, we asked the group to 
discuss the following questions: 

* To meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), 
what steps should states take to ensure the validity and reliability of 
language arts and mathematics assessments for students with limited 
English proficiency? 

* What steps should states take to ensure that students with limited 
English proficiency receive appropriate accommodations on language arts 
and mathematics assessments? 

* Given NCLBA's accountability framework, what is the most appropriate 
way to hold schools and districts accountable for the performance of 
students with limited English proficiency? 

* How can the U.S. Department of Education assist states in their 
efforts to meet NCLBA's assessment and accountability requirements for 
students with limited English proficiency? 

Group members who were selected had significant technical and research 
expertise in assessments issues. Some members had technical expertise 
on general assessment issues, while others had specifically conducted 
assessment research focused on students with limited English 
proficiency. The members of our expert group are listed below: 

Dr. Jamal Abedi: 
University of California, Davis: 

Dr. Stephen Dunbar: 
The University of Iowa: 

Dr. Richard Durán: 
University of California, Santa Barbara: 

Dr. Steven Ferrara: 
American Institutes for Research: 

Dr. Patricia Gándara: 
University of California, Davis: 

Dr. Edward Haertel: 
Stanford University: 

Dr. Rebecca Kopriva: 
University of Maryland: 

Dr. Stanley Rabinowitz: 
WestEd: 

Dr. Charlene Rivera: 
The George Washington University: 

Dr. Rebecca Zwick: 
University of California, Santa Barbara: 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for Student Groups: 

NCLBA requires states to report adequate yearly progress (AYP) results 
at the state level for each of the required student groups, including 
students with limited English proficiency. The law also requires 
Education, starting in the 2004-2005 school year, to make an annual 
determination about whether states have made adequate yearly progress 
for each student group.[Footnote 28] Education has issued some general 
regulations regarding state-level adequate yearly progress. However, 
Education has not yet collected any such state-level adequate yearly 
progress results and has not issued any guidance on how states should 
determine whether a student group has made adequate yearly progress. As 
a result, some states have not yet made adequate yearly progress 
determinations for student groups at the state level. 

In order for a student group, such as students with limited English 
proficiency, to make adequate yearly progress, it must make a number of 
different goals. Specifically: 

* At least 95 percent of students in the group must take the state's 
language arts and mathematics assessments, and: 

* The student group must meet the progress goals established by the 
state for both language arts and mathematics proficiency or: 

* The percentage of students who did not achieve proficient scores must 
have decreased by at least 10 percent from the previous year, and the 
student group must also meet the progress goals established by the 
state for its other academic indicator (graduation rate for high 
schools and usually attendance rate for other schools). 

Figure 7 illustrates the basic decision process for determining 
adequate yearly progress for a student group. 

Figure 7: Process for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for a 
Student Group: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of figure] 

Because states have different assessment systems, they use different 
methods for determining adequate yearly progress. A state can have an 
assessment system that allows it to create the same progress goal for 
mathematics and language arts for all grades, despite using different 
tests in each grade. In this case, the state could review data for all 
students in a student group across the state to determine if the group 
met its annual progress goals. A state can also establish different 
progress goals for different grades or groups of grades, depending on 
the particular test being used. In this case, according to an Education 
official, a state would have to meet all the proficiency and 
participation goals for all the different grades or groups of grades in 
order to make adequate yearly progress. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Percentage of Districts Making AYP Goals for Mathematics 
for Students with Limited English Proficiency: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO analysis of district report cards and district data 
provided by state officials. 

Notes: Data are for school year 2003-2004. 

We requested district-level achievement data from 20 states, and 18 
states responded to our request. 

When districts reported proficiency data for different grades or groups 
of grades, we determined that the percentage of students with limited 
English proficiency met a state's mathematics progress goal if the 
student group met the goal for all grades reported. 

Results from charter schools are included when a charter school is its 
own school district or part of a larger school district. 

Hawaii only has one school district.  

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Proficiency Scores on Mathematics Tests for All Students 
and Students with Limited English Proficiency: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: Consolidated performance reports for the 2003-2004 school 
year.  

Notes: New York and Tennessee did not provide assessment data in their 
state consolidated performance reports for the 2003-2004 school year.  

The results for Arkansas do not include those students with limited 
English proficiency who were considered proficient based on the state's 
portfolio assessment. 

The total student population includes students with limited English 
proficiency. 

[A] Most states reported assessment data for students in the fourth 
grade. States marked with this superscript reported on some other grade 
at the elementary school level, usually either third grade or fifth 
grade.  

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Enhanced Assessment Consortia Participation: 

Assessment; 
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium: 
Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State- to-State 
for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs); 
State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) 
Consortium: English Language Development Assessment (ELDA); 
Mountain West Assessment Consortium (MWAC): MWAC; 
Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant (PA EAG): Comprehensive English 
Language Learning Assessment (CELLA). 

Consortia states: Using assessment in 2005-2006 school year; 
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium: 
Alabama Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Illinois Maine New 
Hampshire New Jersey Oklahoma Rhode Island Vermont Wisconsin; 
State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) 
Consortium: Iowa Louisiana Nebraska Ohio South Carolina West Virginia; 
Mountain West Assessment Consortium (MWAC): Idaho[A] New Mexico[A]  
Michigan [A, B]; 
Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant (PA EAG): Tennessee. 

Consortia states: Not using assessment in 2005-2006 school year; 
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium: 
none; 
State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) 
Consortium: Kentucky Nevada North Carolina Texas; 
Mountain West Assessment Consortium (MWAC): Alaska Colorado Montana 
Nevada North Dakota Utah Wyoming; 
Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant (PA EAG): Florida Maryland 
Michigan[B] Pennsylvania.  

Source: Interviews with consortia and state officials. 

Note: This table reflects states that participated in the consortia 
prior to or during the 2005-2006 school year. Some states are no longer 
consortia members. 

[A] Using test items from consortium-developed assessment. 

[B] Participated in more than one consortium. 

[End of table]

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: English Language Proficiency Assessments Used in the 2005- 
2006 School Year, by State: 

State: Alabama; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: Alaska; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: IDEA Proficiency Test. 

State: Arizona; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Stanford English Language 
Proficiency Test. 

State: Arkansas; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: MAC II (Maculaitis Assessment 
of Competencies) Test of English Language Proficiency. 

State: California; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: California English Language 
Development Test. 

State: Colorado; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Colorado English Language 
Assessment. 

State: Connecticut; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS (Language Assessment 
System) Links. 

State: Delaware; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: District of Columbia; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: Florida; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Various off- the-shelf 
tests[A]. 

State: Georgia; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: Hawaii; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS (Language Assessment 
System) Links. 

State: Idaho; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Mountain West Assessment 
Consortium test items. 

State: Illinois; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: Indiana; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS (Language Assessment 
System) Links. 

State: Iowa; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development 
Assessment (SCASS). 

State: Kansas; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Kansas English Language 
Proficiency Assessment. 

State: Kentucky; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: 2004 IDEA Proficiency Test or 
Language Assessment Scales (LAS)[A]. 

State: Louisiana; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development 
Assessment (SCASS). 

State: Maine; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: Maryland; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS (Language Assessment 
System) Links. 

State: Massachusetts; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Massachusetts English 
Proficiency Assessment. 

State: Michigan; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Proficiency 
Assessment[B] (includes Mountain West Consortium test items). 

State: Minnesota; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Test of Emerging Academic 
English, Minnesota Student Oral Language Observation Matrix, and 
checklist for reading and writing for K-2 students. 

State: Mississippi; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Stanford English Language 
Proficiency Test. 

State: Missouri; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: MAC II (Maculaitis Assessment 
of Competencies) Test of English Language Proficiency. 

State: Montana; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Iowa Test of Basic Skills, 
Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey (English), or other state- approved 
test[A]. 

State: Nebraska; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development 
Assessment (SCASS). 

State: Nevada; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: LAS (Language Assessment 
System) Links. 

State: New Hampshire; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: New Jersey; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: New Mexico; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: New Mexico English Language 
Proficiency Assessment (includes Mountain West Consortium test items). 

State: New York; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: New York State English as a 
Second Language Achievement Test. 

State: North Carolina; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: IDEA Proficiency Test. 

State: North Dakota; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: 2004 IDEA Proficiency Test, 
Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey (English), and Language Assessment 
Scales (LAS)[A]. 

State: Ohio; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development 
Assessment (SCASS). 

State: Oklahoma; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: Oregon; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Proficiency 
Assessment[B]. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Stanford English Language 
Proficiency Test. 

State: Rhode Island; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: South Carolina; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development 
Assessment (SCASS). 

State: South Dakota; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Dakota English Language 
Proficiency assessment. 

State: Tennessee; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Comprehensive English Language 
Learning Assessment (PA EAG). 

State: Texas; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Texas English Language 
Proficiency Assessment System; consists of Reading Proficiency Tests in 
English and Texas Observation Protocols. 

State: Utah; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: 2004 IDEA Proficiency Test. 

State: Vermont; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: Virginia; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Stanford English Language 
Proficiency Test. 

State: Washington; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Washington Language 
Proficiency Test. 

State: West Virginia; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: English Language Development 
Assessment (SCASS). 

State: Wisconsin; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Assessing Comprehension and 
Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners 
(WIDA). 

State: Wyoming; 
English Language Proficiency Assessment: Wyoming English Language 
Learner Assessment. 

Source: Interviews with consortia and state officials. 

[A] State allows school districts to individually choose tests. 

[B] Assessments are not the same; Oregon's is a state developed 
assessment, while Michigan's is a combination of an augmented version 
of the Stanford English Language Proficiency Test and test items from 
the Mountain West Assessment Consortium. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education: 

United States Department Of Education: 
Office Of Elementary And Secondary Education: 
The Assistant Secretary: 

July 20, 2006: 

Ms. Marnie S. Shaul: 
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Shaul: 

I am writing in response to your request for comments on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report (GAO-06-815), dated August 
2006, and entitled "No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education 
Could Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited 
English Proficiency." I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 
draft report and provide insight on our activities to support states in 
serving limited English proficient (LEP) students. 

The following are responses to the recommendations in the report to 
assist states better measure the progress of students with limited 
English proficiency: 

Recommendation 1. Support additional research on appropriate 
accommodations for students with limited English proficiency and 
disseminate information on research-based accommodations to states. 

The Department agrees with acquiring additional information on better 
serving LEP students. The Department's Institute of Education Sciences 
(IES), through its National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 
has sponsored studies of the effectiveness of various accommodations 
for LEP students, such as simplified English and use of translations, 
glossaries, and bilingual dictionaries, and we have applied the 
findings to NAEP. The Department has also shared the results of the 
studies at various meetings and national conferences. NAEP has also 
conducted studies on the impact on validity of test results of 
providing accommodations to LEP students, and on the impact of 
excluding such students from the assessment. 

In addition, IES is working with its National Research and Development 
Center for Assessment and Accountability --known as the Center for 
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) --to 
synthesize the existing research literature on the assessment of LEP 
students. The synthesis addresses both accessibility and validity. 
After disseminating the information to states, CRESST will work with 
states to help them review and improve their assessment instruments and 
procedures, especially with regard to LEP students. 

Recommendation 2. Determine what additional technical assistance states 
need with respect to assessing the academic knowledge of students with 
limited English proficiency and to improve the validity and reliability 
of the assessment results (such as consultations with assessment 
experts and examples of assessments targeted to these students) and 
provide such additional assistance. 

The Department has begun the process of identifying the additional 
technical assistance needs of states related to assessing the academic 
knowledge of limited English proficient students. For this process, the 
Department is using the resources of our Assessment and Accountability 
Comprehensive Center (AACC) and the 16 Regional Comprehensive Centers 
(RCCs) funded by the Department. Specifically, the AACC has developed a 
plan approved by the Department to provide information and resources to 
the RCCs, and through the RCCs to State education agencies (SEAS), 
regarding the assessment and accountability of their special student 
populations (LEP students and students with disabilities). During 2006- 
07 and subsequent years, the AACC will continue to address aspects of 
assessment and accountability as they relate to LEP students. This 
fall, the AACC will conduct a needs assessment of the RCCs and SEAS to 
determine specific areas in which SEAS need assistance and, 
subsequently, the AACC will use that information to develop resource 
materials and to provide specific technical assistance. We anticipate 
that the AACC, in coordination with the Department, will be able to 
provide the following resources to the RCCs and SEAS during the 2006-07 
school year: 

1. A summary evaluation of evidence related to the technical aspects of 
content or language proficiency assessments for LEP students (including 
the reliability and validity of widely used instruments), and a 
synopsis of information on existing available resources and on those 
being developed. The evaluation will yield results that are intended to 
assist consumers of assessments (e.g., SEAs, LEAs) for LEP students. It 
will focus on the technical adequacy (i.e., validity, reliability, 
freedom from bias) of evidence related to assessments used to meet 
relevant Title I and Title III requirements under the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act 
(ESEA) (e.g., assessments developed specifically for a state, 
consortium-developed assessments, assessments published for wider use). 
Technical evidence associated with assessments for LEP students will be 
evaluated against a comprehensive set of validated criteria (Rabinowitz 
& Sato, 2005). Using the results of this evaluation, RCCs and SEAS 
should be better able to gauge the technical adequacy of the 
assessments they are using or have available for use with their LEP 
students and to identify appropriate and necessary next steps for 
ensuring the assessments' validity and, ultimately, the defensibility 
of their assessment systems and results. 

2. Guidelines for the interpretation of regulations regarding the 
implementation of assessments for LEP students (under Titles I and III 
of ESEA), including other pertinent statutes and regulations. These 
guidelines are expected to address compliance with NCLB regulations for 
special student populations such as LEP students and will provide 
information to RCCs as they work with their states in gauging whether 
they are meeting federal requirements; will focus attention on priority 
issues related to implementing practices and systems that are in 
compliance with federal regulations; and will select specific 
implementation strategies, given the particular needs and conditions of 
the state. Selected strategies will have evidence of effectiveness in a 
state or states and will be examples of methods for enhancing and 
supporting federal guidance. 

3. Web-posting and dissemination of evidence-based products and 
services for easy access to the most current information. 

The AACC, headed by a national expert on assessment technical quality 
and staffed by a team of academicians and former practitioners, is well 
suited to conduct the needs assessment necessary to develop resources 
and provide technical assistance. The Department will monitor the 
development of the needs assessment and the subsequent activities of 
the AACC to ensure that the information being developed is of 
consistently high quality and relevance. 

Recommendation 3. Publish additional guidance with more specific 
information on the requirements for assessing English language 
proficiency and tracking the progress of students with limited English 
proficiency in learning English. 

The Department agrees with this recommendation and is exploring ways -
-through guidance to states, the Office of English Language 
Acquisition's annual Title III Summit, and other means --to help states 
appropriately assess and track the progress of students with limited 
proficiency in English. 

Recommendation 4. Explore ways to provide additional flexibilities to 
states in terms of holding states accountable for students with limited 
English proficiency. Such flexibilities could include, for example. 

* Allowing states to include the assessment scores for all students 
formerly considered to have limited English proficiency in a state's 
annual progress results for the group of students with limited English 
proficiency, 

* Extending the period during which the assessment scores for some or 
all students with limited English proficiency would not be included in 
a state's annual progress results, and: 

* Adjusting how states account for recent immigrants with little formal 
schooling in their annual progress results. 

As your report points out, the Department has explored and has already 
provided various types of flexibility to states regarding LEP students 
and how they are considered in states' annual progress results. The 
Department has engaged in discussions with researchers, practitioners, 
and educators to explore appropriate means of providing appropriate 
flexibility in holding schools accountable for the academic progress of 
children who have not grown up speaking English. 

NCLB gives states some flexibility in defining the students who 
constitute the LEP subgroup. States also have some flexibility in 
determining how to assess their LEP students. States can offer a menu 
of accommodations (e.g., use of bilingual dictionaries, extra time, use 
of translators) or develop alternative assessments (e.g., a native-
language version or simplified English version of its assessment). The 
law also allows states three years to test LEP students in language 
arts using a native language assessment, with an additional two years 
if needed on a case-by-case basis. 

The Department recognizes that LEP students new to the United States 
often have some challenges in participating in state assessments due to 
language barriers and the challenge of adjusting to U.S. schools. In 
addition, because students exit the LEP subgroup once they attain 
English language proficiency, states may have difficulty demonstrating 
improvements on state assessments for these students. 

To address these two issues, the Department has received public 
comments on a notice of proposed rulemaking and is in the process of 
completing a regulation on flexibility for "recent arrivals" and 
"formerly LEP" students. In the meantime, the Department is 
implementing a transitional policy with regard to these policy issues. 
Under that transitional policy, recently arrived LEP students during 
the first year of enrollment in U.S. schools can be exempted from 
taking reading/language arts assessments and the scores of recently 
arrived LEP students on state math assessments, as well as reading/ 
language arts assessments if taken, can be excluded from adequate 
yearly progress (AYP) calculations for that first year in U.S. schools 
as well. In addition, the flexibility allows states to include, within 
the LEP subgroup for AYP purposes, for up to two years, the scores on 
state assessments for "formerly LEP" students who have since attained 
English proficiency. 

While the Department has explored and implemented flexibility policies 
related to LEP students, we also know that regular and high-quality 
student assessment, school accountability, and clear and accessible 
data and information about student and school performance are 
absolutely essential to improving instruction for LEP students. The No 
Child Left Behind Act shines a bright light on the needs of students 
who have so often been left behind in our Nation's schools - including 
students with limited English proficiency. Therefore, the Department 
believes that all LEP students need to be included and visible in our 
school accountability systems to improve both instruction and 
achievement outcomes. The ability to better measure performance and 
analyze student data is an important vehicle for improving instruction 
and closing the achievement gap for LEP students and reaching the goal 
of the No Child Left Behind Act of 100 percent of students being able 
to master grade level work by 2013-14. 

We appreciate the opportunity to share our comments, accomplishments 
and plans. Please let me know if you need additional information 
regarding activities underway at the Department to assist States better 
measure the progress of students with limited English proficiency. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Henry L. Johnson: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Marnie Shaul, (202) 512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov and Cornelia Ashby (202) 
512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Michelle St. Pierre (Analyst- 
in-Charge) managed all aspects of this assignment. Shannon Groff, 
Eileen Harrity, and Krista Loose made significant contributions to this 
report. Katie Brillantes contributed to the initial design of the 
assignment. Carolyn Boyce, John Mingus, and Lynn Musser provided key 
technical support, James Rebbe provided legal support, and Scott 
Heacock assisted in message and report development. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES 

[1] For more information on differences in state approaches to meeting 
NCLBA requirements, see GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements 
Needed in Education's Process for Tracking States' Implementation of 
Key Provisions, GAO-04-734 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004). 

[2] These standards are sponsored and published jointly by the American 
Educational Research Association, the American Psychological 
Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. 

[3] We included the District of Columbia in our 48-state total. 

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

[5] We requested district data from 20 states, and 18 states responded 
to our request. 

[6] The number of districts reporting results for these students may 
increase in the future, since states were required to assess students 
in more grades beginning with the 2005-2006 school year. Testing in 
more grades will likely increase the number of districts meeting the 
minimum number of limited English proficient students that will be 
required to separately report proficiency results. 

[7] States determine the minimum number of students in a student group, 
usually between 25 and 45 students. 

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

[9] Under NCLBA, states are required to participate in the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress for reading and mathematics 
assessments in grades four and eight. The results from these 
assessments provide a national measure of student achievement and serve 
as confirmatory evidence about student achievement on state tests. 

[10] Example taken from Robert L. Linn, "CRESST Policy Brief 8: Fixing 
the NCLB Accountability System," Policy Brief of the National Center 
for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Summer 
2005. 

[11] Theodore Coladarci, Gallup Goes to School: The Importance of 
Confidence Intervals for Evaluating "Adequate Yearly Progress" in Small 
Schools, the Rural School and Community Trust Policy Brief, Oct. 2003, 
and Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Steiger, "Volatility in School Test 
Scores: Implications for Test-Based Accountability Systems," in Diane 
Ravitch, ed., Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2002, pp. 235-283. 
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. 

[12] Center on Education Policy, "From the Capital to the Classroom: 
Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act," March 2006. 

[13] When using confidence intervals, upper and lower limits around a 
district's or state's percentage of proficient students are calculated, 
creating a range of values within which there is "confidence" the true 
value lies. For example, instead of saying that 72 percent of students 
scored at the proficient level or above on a test, a confidence 
interval may show that percentage to be between 66 and 78 percent, with 
95 percent confidence. 

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

[15] States were given several years to meet the requirements of the 
Improving America's School Act of 1994. 

[16] Christopher Jepsen and Shelley de Alth, "English Learners in 
California Schools," (San Francisco, California: Public Policy 
Institute of California, 2005). 

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

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

[19] The four consortia include the World-Class Instructional Design 
and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium, State Collaborative on Assessment and 
Student Standards (SCASS) Consortium, Mountain West Assessment 
Consortium (MWAC), and Pennsylvania Enhanced Assessment Grant (PA EAG) 
Consortium. 

[20] Although these assessments are not fully aligned to state 
standards, Education officials noted that they have not yet provided 
states guidance on what level of alignment the agency expects. Thus, 
some of these may ultimately meet Education's requirements. 

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

[22] The states providing these comments represent more than our 5 case 
study states. We also contacted officials in 28 additional states to 
determine what English language proficiency assessment they planned to 
use in 2006. 

[23] Education does not require state English language proficiency 
tests to be aligned to state academic standards. However, states' 
English language proficiency tests and academic standards are 
connected, in that Education requires that state's English language 
proficiency tests be aligned to state English language proficiency 
standards and NCLBA requires that state English language proficiency 
standards be aligned with state academic standards. 

[24] We reviewed reports from Title III monitoring visits of 13 states 
conducted between April and October 2005 that were available from 
Education as of March 31, 2006. 

[25] Education has sent letters to the remaining states outlining the 
issues that need to be resolved in order for their assessment systems 
to be approved. 

[26] On June 24, 2004, Education issued proposed regulations on these 
flexibilities for students with limited English proficiency for public 
comment, but the regulations have not been finalized as of June 2006. 

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

[28] NCLBA also requires Education to annually determine whether states 
have met their Title III goals related to increases in students making 
progress in learning English and attaining English proficiency. 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: