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

In nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which we obtained data, students  with limited English proficiency did not meet state proficiency goals in the  2003-2004 school year. 1). However, offering accommodations may or may  not improve the validity of test results, as research in this area is lacking. Officials in 4 of these states reported following generally  accepted test development procedures, while a Nebraska official reported  that the state expects districts to follow such procedures. Officials in 3 of our study states told us they also used a statistical  approach to evaluate test items for bias related to students with limited  English proficiency. Both Education’s Peer Reviews and Our Group of Experts Raised Concerns Regarding State Efforts to Ensure Valid and Reliable Assessment Results

Education’s completed NCLBA peer reviews of 38 states found that 25 did  not provide sufficient evidence on the validity or reliability of results for  students with limited English proficiency. According to our expert group and our review of literature, research is  lacking on what specific accommodations are appropriate for students  with limited English proficiency, as well as their effectiveness in  improving the validity of assessment results. Our group of experts told us that this type of assessment is difficult and  costly to develop. Development of a valid native language assessment  involves more than a simple translation of the original test. Most States Implemented New English Language Proficiency Assessments but Faced Challenges Establishing Their Validity

Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments  for the 2005-2006 school year to meet Education’s requirement for states  to administer English language proficiency tests that meet NCLBA  requirements by the spring of 2006. 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. Officials in our study states and test developers we interviewed reported  that they commonly apply generally accepted test development  procedures to develop their assessments, but some are still in the process  of documenting their validity and reliability. The study, which was funded by Education, noted that none  of the assessments contained “sufficient technical evidence to support the  high-stakes accountability information and conclusions of student  readiness they are meant to provide.”

	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. While  Education has offered states some flexibility in how they incorporate  these students into their accountability systems, many of the state and  district officials we interviewed indicated that additional flexibility is  needed to ensure that academic progress of these students is accurately  measured. While providing this technical assistance, Education has issued little  written guidance on developing English language proficiency assessments  that meet NCLBA’s requirements and on tracking the progress of students  in acquiring English. However, officials in about one-third of the 33 states we contacted  expressed uncertainty about implementing these requirements. 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. 2). GAO-06-815. No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education’s  Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification  Requirements.
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 testimony describes (1) the extent to which these students are meeting annual academic progress goals, (2) what states have done to ensure the validity of their academic assessments, (3) what states are doing to ensure the validity of their English language proficiency assessments, and (4) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) is supporting states' efforts to meet NCLBA's assessment requirements for these students. This testimony is based on a July 2006 report (GAO-06-815). To collect the information for this report, we convened a group of experts and studied five states (California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Texas). We also conducted a state survey and reviewed state and Education documents.

What GAO Found

In nearly two-thirds of 48 states for which we obtained data, students with limited English proficiency did not meet state proficiency goals for language arts or mathematics in school year 2003-2004. Further, in most states, these students generally did not perform as well as other student groups on state mathematics tests for elementary students. Officials in our five study states reported taking steps to follow generally accepted test development procedures to ensure the validity and reliability of academic tests for these students. However, our group of experts expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing these students in a valid manner, noting that some states lack technical expertise. Further, Education's completed peer reviews of assessments in 38 states found that 25 states did not provide adequate evidence of their validity or reliability. To improve the validity of these test results, most states offer accommodations, such as a bilingual dictionary. However, our experts reported that research is lacking on what accommodations are effective in mitigating language barriers. Several states used native language or alternate assessments for students with limited English proficiency, but these tests are costly to develop and are not appropriate for all students. Many states implemented new English language proficiency assessments in 2006 to meet NCLBA requirements, and, as a result, complete information on their validity and reliability is not yet available. In 2006, 22 states used tests developed by one of four state consortia. Officials in our study states reported taking steps to ensure the validity of these tests. However, a 2005 Education-funded review of 17 English language proficiency tests found insufficient documentation of their validity. Education has offered a variety of technical assistance to help states assess students with limited English proficiency. However, Education has issued little written guidance to states on developing English language proficiency tests. Officials in about one-third of the 33 states we contacted told us they wanted more guidance about how to develop tests that meet NCLBA requirements. Education has offered states some flexibility in how they assess students with limited English proficiency, but officials in our study states told us that additional flexibility is needed to ensure that progress measures appropriately track the academic progress of these students. Since our report was published, Education has initiated a partnership with the states and other organizations to support the development of valid assessment options for students with limited English proficiency.