Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization: Data Options for the English Language Acquisition State Grants Formula (Title III-A)

Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization: Data Options for the English Language Acquisition State Grants Formula (Title III-A)

Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Reauthorization: Data Options for the English
Language Acquisition State Grants Formula
(Title III-A)
Cassandria Dortch
Analyst in Education Policy
January 18, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42154
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Summary
As the 112th Congress considers reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), concerns about the source of data for the Title III-A state formula allocation may be
addressed. ESEA Title III-A, the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and
Academic Achievement Act, is the major source of federal funding targeted to the academic
achievement of K-12 limited English proficient students (also known as English learners) and
recent immigrant students. Title III-A formula grant allocations are made to the states, including
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, based on the proportion of limited English proficient
(LEP) students and immigrant students in each state relative to all states. When the ESEA was
last reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), statutory provisions of
the Title III-A allocation formula directed the Secretary of Education to make allocations based
on data from two allowable sources—the Bureau of Census or state reported data, whichever
would “yield the most accurate, up to-date numbers.” The most accurate, up-to-date, stable, and
relevant source of data for the numbers of LEP and immigrant students has been difficult to
discern, and recently the Department of Education commissioned a study from the National
Research Council (NRC) to recommend a data source.
The Department of Education currently uses three-year estimates of the numbers of LEP and
immigrant students in each state from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is
administered by the Bureau of the Census. After reviewing the ACS data and data reported
annually by the states, the aforementioned NRC study recently recommended combining both
ACS and state reported data to determine the number of LEP students for use in the Title III-A
formula allocation. The NRC study specifically recommended calculating the number of LEP
students for use in the formula as the sum of 25% of the state reported number of LEP students
who scored below the proficient level on the current year’s state English language proficiency
assessment (state LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA) and 75% of the ACS
three-year estimates of the number of 5 to 21 year old LEP students who speak English less than
very well (ACS LEP students).
This report examines how the state allocations would change based on the NRC recommendation
and an alternative approach. The alternative approach calculates the number of LEP students for
use in the formula as the sum of 25% of the state reported number of LEP students (state LEP
students) and 75% of the ACS LEP students. First, the report compares how the value of each
state’s allocation would change under the new methodologies compared to the previous year
under the current methodology. Second, the report evaluates the estimated year-to-year changes in
the value of each state’s allocation under the new methodologies. Large changes in the amount of
state grant allocations from one year to the next are not optimal for planning and operating quality
language acquisition programs. The analysis presented in this report finds that the NRC
recommendation would result in state allocations decreasing by more than 10% for two states in
comparison to the FY2011 allocations calculated according to statutory provisions; the alternative
approach would result in state allocations decreasing by more than 10% for four states. More
striking is the potentially substantial increase in allocation amounts for Alaska and New Mexico.
In addition, the year-to-year variability would be lower under the alternative approach than the
NRC recommendation. The report discusses several options for reducing variability in the year-
to-year allocations during the transition to a new data source and methodology.

Congressional Research Service

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Title III-A Appropriations and State Formula Allocation Description............................................. 2
Title III-A Formula Data Sources .................................................................................................... 5
State Reported Data and Section 1111(b)(7) Students............................................................... 5
Census Data............................................................................................................................... 7
Recommendation of the National Research Council ....................................................................... 9
Additional LEP Data Considerations....................................................................................... 12
Estimates of the National Research Council Recommendation on Title III-A Allocations ........... 13
Change in Formula Allocations Under Each Scenario Compared to Current
Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 14
Comparison of Year-to-Year Variability in Allocations Under Each Scenario ........................ 15

Figures
Figure 1. 2000 Census Long Form Questions on the
English Speaking Capability of Individuals ................................................................................. 8
Figure 2. 2000 Census Long Form Questions on an Individual’s Residence in the United
States............................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 3. Estimated Number of States for Which the Percent Difference between the
FY2011 Estimated Allocation under Scenarios 1 and 2 and the FY2011 ACS-only
Estimated Allocation Fell Into a Specific Range........................................................................ 15
Figure 4. Number of Year-to-Year Changes in the Estimated Title III-A State Allocations
by Percent Change for Simulations Using the ACS-Only Methodology and Scenarios 1
and 2 Over a Three-Year Period ................................................................................................. 17

Tables
Table 1. Appropriations for the ESEA Title III-A Program: FY2002–FY2011 ............................... 2
Table 2. Comparison of ACS and State-Provided Data on Desired Characteristics for an
Allocation Formula..................................................................................................................... 10
Table B-1. Comparison of Most Recent Estimates of LEP Students: Three-Year ACS Data
(CY2007-2009) and State Reported Data (AY2009-2010)......................................................... 22
Table C-1. Estimated Title III-A State Allocations and Change in Allocations under ACS-
Only Methodology and Scenarios 1 and 2: FY2011................................................................... 26
Table D-1. Estimated Title III-A State Allocations Using Different LEP Data Sources
Over Three-Year Period.............................................................................................................. 30

Congressional Research Service

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Appendixes
Appendix A. Changes in Title III-A Formula Data........................................................................ 18
Appendix B. Comparison of ACS and State LEP Data Values...................................................... 21
Appendix C. Estimated FY2011 Title III-A State Allocations and Change in Allocations
under ACS-Only Methodology and Scenarios 1 and 2............................................................... 26
Appendix D. Estimated Title III-A State Allocations Using Different LEP Data Sources ............ 30

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34

Congressional Research Service

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Introduction
Title III-A, the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic
Achievement Act, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the major source of
federal funding targeted to enhance the academic achievement of K-12 students who are either
limited English proficient (LEP)1 or recent immigrants. Title III-A was enacted by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). Title III-A was designed to help ensure that LEP
students and recent immigrant students attain English proficiency, develop high levels of
academic attainment in English, and meet the same state academic content and student academic
achievement standards that all students are expected to meet. Title III-A provides federal funds to
states, local educational agencies (LEAs), and other entities to support language instruction
educational programs, professional development, and other activities for LEP and immigrant
students.
Title III-A authorizes formula grants to states.2 States may use some of the funds on state
activities, which include professional development, planning and administration, evaluation,
technical assistance, and incentive awards to eligible entities that have exceeded their
accountability objectives. States also make subgrants to eligible entities—LEAs, consortia of
LEAs, or partnerships between one or more LEAs and an institution of higher education, a
community-based organization, or a state educational agency (SEA). Eligible entities that receive
subgrants based on their share of LEP students are required to use their funds to increase the
English language proficiency of LEP students by providing high-quality instructional programs
that are grounded in scientifically based research that demonstrates the program is effective in
increasing English language proficiency and student academic achievement in core academic
subjects. Funds must also be used to provide high-quality professional development to school
staff or community-based personnel that work with LEP students. Eligible entities receiving
subgrants for immigrants students are required to use the funds to support activities that “provide
enhanced instructional opportunities” that help immigrant children and their parents succeed in
the U.S. educational system. Title III-A funds are also used for the evaluation and dissemination
of promising language instruction programs and strategies.
Title III-A formula grant allocations are made to the states, including the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, based on the proportion of LEP students and immigrant students in each state
relative to all states. Statutory provisions delineating the Title III-A allocation formula directed
the Secretary of Education (Secretary) to make allocations based on data from two allowable
sources—the Bureau of Census or state reported data, whichever would “yield the most accurate,
up to-date numbers.” The U.S. Department of Education (ED) commissioned the National
Research Council (NRC) to make a recommendation regarding the best source or sources of data
to use in allocating Title III-A appropriations to states. After reviewing the Bureau of Census and
state reported data, the NRC provided recommendations to combine both ACS and state reported
data to determine the number of LEP students for use in the Title III-A formula allocation.3 As the

1 The term LEP student is used in the ESEA. Beyond the ESEA, these students are also referred to as English language
learners (ELLs) and English learners (ELs).
2 If appropriations are less than $650 million, Title III-A is no longer applicable and Improving Language Instruction
Programs (Title III-B) would be implemented. Title III-B would provide competitive, rather than formula, grants to
eligible entities. Since the enactment of NCLB, appropriations have not fallen below the $650 million threshold.
Therefore, Title III-B is not discussed in this report.
3 National Research Council. (2011). Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

112th Congress is actively considering reauthorization of the ESEA, Congress may take the
opportunity to reevaluate the data sources used to allocate the Title III-A funds to states in an
effort to promote LEP academic achievement. This report will explore
• the advantages and disadvantages of the most relevant data sources and
• the effect that changing the data source could have on Title III-A state formula
allocations.
Title III-A Appropriations and State Formula
Allocation Description
A portion of Title III-A appropriations are reserved for specific purposes before being allocated to
the states—the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The
Secretary is required to reserve the greater of 0.5% or $5 million of the appropriation for grants to
eligible entities that operate elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools predominantly for
Native American and Alaska Native children. An additional 0.5% of the appropriation is reserved
for the outlying areas. The Secretary is also required to reserve 6.5% of the total appropriation for
national activities. Of the funds reserved for national activities, not more than 0.5% of the total
Title III-A appropriation may be used for evaluation activities, and not more than $2 million may
be reserved for the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language
Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA).
Appropriations for the Title III-A program have generally increased since the program’s FY2002
enactment level of $665 million (see Table 1). The funds available for state formula grants after
the aforementioned reservations have also increased. For FY2002-FY2005, a diminishing portion
of the appropriation was allocated to continuation awards for the ESEA Title VII programs as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of the NCLB. In FY2011, the amount appropriated
was $734 million. The majority of Title III-A funding is used to provide formula grants to states.
In FY2011 almost $686 million (93.5%) of the total Title III-A funding is estimated to be
allocated under state formula grants.
Table 1. Appropriations for the ESEA Title III-A Program: FY2002–FY2011
Title III-A
Percent
Title III-A State Formula
Percent
Appropriation
Change from
Grants Fundinga Change from
Fiscal Year
($ in thousands)
Prior Year (%)
($ in thousands)
Prior Year (%)
2002 665,000
NA
411,675
NA
2003 683,747
2.8
485,546
17.9
2004 681,215 -0.4
553,433
14.0
2005 675,765 -0.8
587,543
6.2

(...continued)
Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part
A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and Assessment.
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Congressional Research Service
2

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Title III-A
Percent
Title III-A State Formula
Percent
Appropriation
Change from
Grants Fundinga Change from
Fiscal Year
($ in thousands)
Prior Year (%)
($ in thousands)
Prior Year (%)
2006 669,007 -1.0
625,522
6.5
2007 669,007
0.0
625,522
0.0
2008 700,395
4.7
654,869
4.7
2009 730,000
4.2
682,550
4.2
2010 750,000
2.7
696,250
2.0
2011 733,530b -2.2
685,851c -1.5
Source: FY2011 and FY2012 President’s Budget and U.S. Department of Education State Tables by Program,
downloaded from website on July 13, 2011.
Notes: NA means not applicable.
a. Title III-A state formula grants funding is the Title III-A appropriation less reservations for schools
predominantly for Native American and Alaska Native children, the outlying areas, national activities, and
previously authorized continuation awards. A portion of the appropriation for FY2002-FY2005 was
allocated to continuation awards for the ESEA Title VII programs as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The Title III-A state formula grants funding includes
allocations for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
b. The Title III-A appropriation for FY2011 includes the 0.2% across-the-board reduction required by section
1119 of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10).
c. The FY2011 state formula grants appropriation was estimated by the U.S. Department of Education as of
July 11, 2011.
After the reservations, Title III-A formula grant allocations are made to states based on the
proportion of LEP students and the proportion of immigrant students in each state relative to all
states. The formula weights the student counts differently. Eighty percent of a state’s allocation is
based on each state’s share of the number of LEP students in all of the states, resulting in a
formula allocation based primarily on the number of LEP students in each state. The remaining
20% of a state’s allocation is based on each state’s share of the number of recent immigrant
students in all of the states. The minimum state grant is $500,000. The maximum grant for Puerto
Rico is 0.5% of the sum of the allocations to all of the states. Because special rules apply to
Puerto Rico, the 50 states and the District of Columbia will be referred to hereafter as the 51
states.
State Allocation = [ (( LEP / ∑ LEP ) * 0.8) + ((RIM / ∑ RIM ) * 0.2) * APP ] *
S_MIN_ADJ, or S_MIN, if greater
Where:
LEP = Number of limited English proficient students in a state
RIM = Number of recent immigrant children and youth in a state
APP = Appropriation
S_MIN_ADJ = State minimum adjustment (proportional decrease to apply the statewide
minimum grant)
Congressional Research Service
3

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

S_MIN = State minimum grant
∑ = Sum (for all states or eligible entities)
States make subgrants to eligible entities (often LEAs) based on the relative number of LEP
students in schools served by the eligible entity. States also make subgrants to eligible entities that
have experienced a significant increase in the number of immigrant students enrolled in schools
in the geographic area served by the eligible entity.4
Program statute defines LEP students as individuals
• who are ages 3 through 21;
• who are enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary or secondary school;
• who (1) were not born in the United States or whose native language is not
English; (2) are Native American, Alaska Native, or a native resident of the
outlying areas and come from an environment where a language other than
English has had a significant impact on the individual’s level of English language
proficiency; or (3) are migratory with a native language other than English and
come from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and
• whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English
language may be sufficient to deny the individual the ability to meet the state’s
proficient level of achievement on state academic assessments; the ability to
successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English;
or the opportunity to participate fully in society.5
Program statute defines immigrant children and youth as individuals
• who are ages 3 through 21;
• who were not born in the states, including the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico; and
• who have not been attending one or more schools in the states for more than
three full academic years.6

4 States must distribute at least 95% of their allocation to eligible entities; therefore, up to 5% may be used for state
activities. No more than the greater of 60% of the funds not distributed to eligible entities or $175,000 may be used by
the state for planning and administration. States must reserve not more than 15% of the state allocation to make
subgrants to eligible entities that have experienced a significant increase in immigrant students enrolled in schools in
the geographic area served by the eligible entity. After the reservation for state activities and eligible entities that have
experienced a significant increase in immigrant students, the remaining funds are distributed to all eligible entities
according to the proportion of LEP students in each eligible entity relative to all eligible entities in the state. The
threshold for eligible entities receiving subgrants based on their share of LEP students is $10,000. Therefore, eligible
entities that would receive less than $10,000 must enter into consortia with other eligible entities such that the subgrant
to the consortia is not less than $10,000. Eligible entities may use up to 2% of their distribution for administration.
5 ESEA Section 9101(25).
6 ESEA Section 3301(6).
Congressional Research Service
4

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Title III-A Formula Data Sources
Statutory language requires the Secretary to use “data that will yield the most accurate, up to-date
numbers” in determining Title III-A state allocation amounts (see text box below). In accordance
with statutory provisions, the two data sources ED may use to determine the numbers of LEP and
immigrant children are either
• state reported data, or
• data available from the Bureau of the Census (Census).
For FY2004 and beyond, statute requires ED to use either the numbers of children assessed for
English proficiency as required under Section 1111(b)(7) and reported by the state or the
American Community Survey (ACS) data from Census, whichever is the best data. For a history
of the actual data used to calculate Title III-A formula allocations, see Appendix A.
ESEA Section 3111(c) Statute Defining Data Source for Calculating Title III-A
State Formula Allocation
(4) USE OF DATA FOR DETERMINATIONS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—In making State allotments under paragraph (3), for the purpose of determining the number
of limited English proficient children in a State and in all States, and the number of immigrant children and youth
in a State and in all States, for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall use data that will yield the most accurate, up-
to-date numbers of such children and youth.
(B) SPECIAL RULE.—
(i) FIRST 2 YEARS.—In making determinations under subparagraph (A) for the 2 fiscal years following the
date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [enacted Jan. 8, 2002], the Secretary shall
determine the number of limited English proficient children in a State and in all States, and the number of
immigrant children and youth in a State and in all States, using data available from the Bureau of Census or
submitted by the States to the Secretary.
(ii) SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—For subsequent fiscal years, the Secretary shall determine the number of
limited English proficient children in a State and in all States, and the number of immigrant children and
youth in a State and in all States, using the more accurate of—
(I) the data available from the American Community Survey available from the Department of
Commerce; or
(II) the number of children being assessed for English proficiency in a State as required under section
1111(b)(7).
Source: Section 3111(c)(4) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended.

State Reported Data and Section 1111(b)(7) Students
On the annual Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR), states report several statistics
related to their Title III-A programs. The counts of LEP students reported in the CSPR include
the following:
Congressional Research Service
5

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

• the unduplicated number of LEP students, which includes students who were
identified as LEP using a screening7 English language proficiency assessment
(ELPA) in the current year and students who were identified as LEP using a
screening ELPA in a prior year but were not assessed as English proficient on a
state annual ELPA in a prior year (hereafter referred to as the state reported LEP
students);8
• the number of LEP students who were tested on a state annual English language
proficiency assessment (ELPA);
• the number of LEP students who scored at or above the proficient level on a state
annual ELPA in the current year (hereafter, the number of LEP students who did
not score at or above the proficient level on a state annual ELPA in the current
year are referred to as the state reported LEP students scoring below proficient
on recent ELPA);
• the unduplicated number of LEP students receiving Title III-A services for LEP
students; and
• the number of LEP students receiving Title III-A services for LEP students who
scored at or above the proficient level on a state annual ELPA.
Appendix B presents state reported counts of LEP students for the 2009-2010 academic year,
excluding the number of LEP students who were tested on a state annual ELPA.
Of the state reported data, ESEA provisions currently only allow the use of Section 1111(b)(7)
students in determining the count of both LEP students and immigrant students (Figure 1).
Section 1111(b)(7) of the ESEA requires an annual ELPA of all LEP students in the schools
served by the state educational agency (SEA). To be an LEP student, a student must have been
identified as LEP using a screening ELPA at some point, and the student must not have scored at
or above the proficient level on a state annual ELPA in a prior year. Section 1111(b)(7) students
are the LEP students who are assessed annually for English language proficiency, referred to as
state reported LEP students. Annually, a certain number of LEP students will score at or above the
proficient level on an ELPA. If an LEP student scores at or above the proficient level on a state
annual ELPA in the current year and meets other state criteria, as applicable, the student will not
be LEP in the subsequent year.9 The state reported LEP students scoring below proficient on
recent ELPA will remain in the LEP subgroup in the subsequent year. The number of children
assessed for English proficiency as required under Section 1111(b)(7) should equal the
unduplicated number of LEP students reported on the CSPR, but there are no specific CSPR
instructions to this effect.

7 Once a student has been identified as potentially LEP through a home language survey, teacher referral, or another
mechanism, the student’s English language proficiency is assessed on a screening or placement English language
proficiency assessment (ELPA). This screening ELPA may or may not be the same as the state annual ELPA.
8 As of January 2011, Puerto Rico assesses Spanish proficiency rather than English proficiency.
9 A state may choose to include former LEP students in the LEP subgroup for two years after the students score at the
proficient level on a state ELPA for reporting adequate yearly progress (AYP) under ESEA Title I-A. Title III-A also
requires that states monitor former LEP students for two years after the students score at the proficient level on a state
ELPA to determine whether the former LEP students meet state academic content and student academic achievement
standards.
Congressional Research Service
6

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

In practice, the state count of immigrant students is independent of the count of Section
1111(b)(7) students and based solely on the statutory definition of immigrant children and youth.
Immigrant students who are also LEP students are counted in both categories, LEP and
immigrant. States annually report two counts of immigrant students:
• the numbers of immigrant students enrolled in the elementary or secondary
schools in the state, and
• the numbers of immigrant students who are receiving Title III-A services for
immigrant students.
Census Data
Census collects survey information about the education, employment, income, and housing of the
U.S. population. The information is often used to plan and fund federal programs for various
communities. The decennial census is conducted once every 10 years to provide an official count
of the entire U.S. population to Congress. The American Community Survey (ACS) is conducted
monthly to provide annual up-to-date information about the social and economic needs of various
U.S. communities. The ACS survey is representative of the United States population in both
institutional and noninstitutional group quarters.10
The 2000 census long form questionnaire collected data on the English speaking capability of
individuals. The survey form asked three questions (Figure 1). The 2010 census did not and
future censuses will not ask questions about the English speaking capability of individuals. Since
1996, the American Community Survey (ACS) has asked the same three questions regarding the
English speaking capability of household members. The number of 5-21 year olds who speak a
language other than English at home and who speak English less than “very well” is used to
estimate the LEP student count for the Title III-A formula.

10 References in this report to the ACS survey include the Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS), which is the
equivalent of the American Community Survey for Puerto Rico. For more information on the ACS, see CRS Report
R41532, The American Community Survey: Development, Implementation, and Issues for Congress, by Jennifer D.
Williams.
Congressional Research Service
7

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Figure 1. 2000 Census Long Form Questions on the
English Speaking Capability of Individuals

11. a. Does this person speak a language other than English at home?
□ Yes
□ No → Skip to 12
b. What is this language?

c. How well does this person speak English?
□ Very well
□ Well
□ Not well
□ Not at all

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United States Census 2000 Long Form
Questionnaire, downloaded from http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf on October 25, 2011.
The 2000 census long form questionnaire also collected data on the length of an individual’s
residence in the United States (Figure 2). Since 1996, the American Community Survey (ACS)
has asked the same questions regarding the length of an individual’s residence in the United
States. The number of 3-21 year olds who were foreign born and who have lived in the United
States for three or fewer than three years is used to estimate the immigrant student count for the
Title III-A formula.
Figure 2. 2000 Census Long Form Questions on an
Individual’s Residence in the United States

12. Where was this person born?
□ In the United States – Print name of state

□ Outside the United States – Print name of foreign country

14. When did this person come to live in the United States?
Year

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United States Census 2000 Long Form
Questionnaire, downloaded from http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf on October 25, 2011.
Because the ACS samples a small but statistically significant number of households every month,
it provides one-year, three-year, and five-year data estimates. For geographic areas of at least
65,000 persons, Census has determined that the one-year estimates are reliable. Data on
geographic areas of smaller populations and small population subgroups require more samples
and a multi-year estimate to enhance reliability. ACS provides three-year estimates for geographic
Congressional Research Service
8

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

areas with populations of at least 20,000, and five-year estimates for all areas. Therefore, the
three-year ACS data are more reliable than the one-year estimates of the LEP population,
particularly for low population areas. Appendix B presents the three-year ACS estimates of LEP
students for calendar years 2007-2009.
Recommendation of the National Research Council
As previously mentioned, ED commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to make a
recommendation regarding the best source or sources of data to use in allocating Title III-A
appropriations to states. The NRC convened a panel of experts in data usage, state data collection,
education policy, demography, statistical estimation methods, Census and ACS methodology,
administrative data systems, and testing and assessment. The panel developed a set of desirable
characteristics of data for formula program calculations against which to review possible data
sources.
The NRC determined that the ACS data and state reported data were the only relevant data
sources. The NRC analyzed the following LEP student counts:
• state reported LEP students;
• the number of LEP students who were tested on a state annual ELPA as reported
by the states on the CSPR;
• state reported LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA;11
• the unduplicated number of LEP students receiving Title III-A services for LEP
students as reported by the states on the CSPR;
• the ACS one-year and three-year estimates of the number of 5 to 21 year old LEP
students who speak English less than very well;
• the ACS estimates of the number of 5 to 21 year old LEP students who speak
English less than well;
• the ACS estimates of the number of 5 to 18 year old LEP students who speak
English less than very well and who are enrolled in public school;
• the ACS estimates of the number of 5 to 18 year old LEP students who speak
English less than well and who are enrolled in public school;
The NRC also analyzed the following counts of immigrant children:
• the numbers of immigrant students enrolled in the elementary or secondary
schools in the state as reported by the states on the CSPR;
• the ACS one-year and three-year estimates of the number of 3 to 21 year old
immigrant youth; and

11 The NRC panel derived the state-reported number of LEP students who scored below the proficient level on the state
ELPA by subtracting the state-reported number of LEP students who scored at or above the proficient level on the state
ELPA from the state-reported number of LEP students who were tested on the state ELPA.
Congressional Research Service
9

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

• the ACS one-year and three-year estimates of the number of 5 to 18 year old
immigrant youth who are enrolled in public school;
The NRC panel conducted several data analyses and evaluations of the data sources and their
potential impact on the Title III-A allocations. The 2011 NRC report summarized the relative
strengths and weaknesses of the data sources. The summary comparison is presented in Table 2.
Two plus marks (++) in the table indicate that the data source meets the standards of the desired
characteristic. A single plus mark (+) indicates that the data source does not fully meet the
standards of the desired characteristic. The ACS data meet the standards for seven of the ten
criteria; while the state reported data meet the standards for only three of the ten criteria.
Table 2. Comparison of ACS and State-Provided Data on Desired Characteristics
for an Allocation Formula
Desired
ACS
State
Characteristic
Evaluation
Data
Data
Conceptual Fita
The ACS estimates define need in terms of the numbers of children
+ ++
and youth who are eligible for being served by virtue of their skill in
speaking the English language. The state-provided counts define need
in terms of the number of those identified by schools as being eligible
by virtue of surveys and assessments that are becoming increasingly
standardized. The state-provided data are considered to be more
accurate and relevant assessments of individual students as well as of
the intensity of need as defined by the policies of the various states.
Geographic Detailb
The ACS estimates and the state-provided counts are available for
++ ++
both states and local education agencies (LEAs).
Timelinessc
The ACS state-level estimates for use in the allocation formula are
+ +
available approximately nine months following the reference period.
The state-provided counts are submitted by the states to the
Department of Education about six months after the school year data
are collected in the fall and publicly released in July, which is also
about nine months after collection.
Qualityd
The data from the ACS meet statistical reliability standards as
++ +
described in this report and are of acceptable precision. State-
provided counts are based on administrative data and are not subject
to sampling error, although there may be some different
interpretation of the instructions for data collection. State-provided
counts on immigrant children and youth very much rely on LEA
judgments, and they fall short of the quality of the ELL counts or the
ACS estimates.
Coste
Both the ACS estimates and state-provided counts of the ELL
+ +
population are available at minimal extra cost.
Fairnessf
The Census Bureau has an excellent reputation for assuring that the
++ +
data in its charge are free from manipulation. State data systems and
submission procedures have improved such that the data are similarly
free from manipulation, but states still have discretion over the
timing of submissions and other policies that may affect perceptions
of fairness.
Stabilityg
The state-provided counts are relatively stable from year to year.
++ ++
The annual ACS estimates for smaller states have been subject to
greater variation due to small sample sizes, but they are comparable.
The three-year estimates are more stable than both the one-year
ACS estimates and the state counts.
Congressional Research Service
10

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Desired
ACS
State
Characteristic Evaluation Data
Data
Insensitivity to
The ACS estimates are not sensitive to administrative practices or
++ +
policy and
policy differences, although they may be sensitive to differences in
methodological
demographic composition of the respondents. The state-provided
differencesh
counts are somewhat sensitive to state decisions regarding
identification, testing, and program entry and exit policies. The panel
has no evidence that these state decisions are made in any way to
influence the federal government’s allocation of Title III funds.
Nonetheless, the decisions would tend to influence the allocation.
Transparencyi
ACS data are collected by professional staff using highly standardized,
++ +
well-documented methods. State data are collected by methods that
vary from state to state and rely on implementation by local
authorities; consequently, documentation of the methods as they are
implemented across the country is not readily available.
Comparabilityj
The ACS is comparable across geographic and demographic
++ +
dimensions. The state-based counts conform to definitions
promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education but are not
comparable in their constructs due to differing state tests and
classification and reclassification criteria.
Source: National Research Council, Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners. Panel
to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part A,
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and
Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press, 2011), pp. 165-166.
a. Conceptual fit is the extent to which the data meets the conceptual objectives of the program.
b. Geographical detail is the extent to which the data is available at the level of geographic detail required by
the program.
c. Timeliness is the extent to which the data represents the closest time period to the time period for which
the grant is allocated.
d. Quality is the level of accuracy, objectivity, reliability, interpretability, and comparability of the data for their
intended purpose.
e. Cost is the cost required to manipulate the data into a suitable format for use in the allocation calculation.
f.
Fairness is the extent to which the data is free from manipulation and the extent to which it can be audited.
g. Stability is the extent to which the data may experience large, inexplicable variations from year to year.
h. Insensitivity to policy and methodological differences is the extent to which the data is free from possible
manipulation by the stakeholders that may benefit.
i.
Transparency is the extent to which the data collection methodology can be repeated to achieve the
same results.
j.
Comparability is the extent to which the methodology for data collection is the same between jurisdictions.
However, because the state reported data provide a better conceptual fit to the goals of the
program and the definition of LEP in the statute, are objective, and are a direct and
comprehensive measure of English speaking, reading, writing, and listening ability, the NRC
report recommended their use in the formula. Also, the NRC report indicated that the state
reported number of LEP students who scored below proficient on the state ELPA would
‘conceptually’ be relatively objective across states and more consistent within states when
evaluated against the state reported number of LEP students. The NRC panel determined that the
state reported data on immigrant youth are too inconsistent between states and of poor quality.
Congressional Research Service
11

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Because ACS data provide interstate and intrastate uniformity, the NRC report recommended
retaining their use in the Title III-A formula. The final recommendations were the following:
• Initially calculate the number of LEP students for use in the allocation formula as
the sum of 25% of the state reported LEP students scoring below proficient on
recent ELPA and 75% of the three-year ACS LEP students, and eventually
increase the weight of the state reported LEP students scoring below proficient
on recent ELPA to 50% as the reliability and comparability of the state data
improve.
NRC Initial Recommended State Allocation = [ (( LEP / ∑ LEP ) * 0.8) + ((RIM / ∑
RIM ) * 0.2) * APP ] * S_MIN_ADJ, or S_MIN, if greater
Where:
LEP = Number of limited English proficient students in a state = 0.25 * (state
reported LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA) + 0.75 * (three-
year ACS LEP students)
RIM = Number of recent immigrant children and youth in a state
APP = Appropriation
S_MIN_ADJ = State minimum adjustment (proportional decrease to apply the
statewide minimum grant)
S_MIN = State minimum grant
∑ = Sum (for all states or eligible entities)
• Continue to use three-year ACS data for the numbers of immigrant students.
• Improve the ACS survey questions to more accurate assess English language
proficiency of individuals of different socioeconomic, cultural, situational, and
demographic characteristics.
Additional LEP Data Considerations
The NRC panel suggested—it did not recommend—that ED consider limiting the ACS three-year
estimates to the number of 5 to 18 year old LEP students who speak English less than very well
and who are enrolled in public school.12 ED currently uses the ACS three-year estimates of the
number of 5 to 21 year old LEP students who speak English less than very well. This change
would target the allocation of funds on students more likely to receive English language
instruction from the public school system.

12 National Research Council. (2011). Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners.
Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part
A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and Assessment.
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, pp. 51-52,
167.
Congressional Research Service
12

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Second, the NRC report suggested—it did not recommend—that ED consider using the five-year
ACS estimates for greater year-to-year funding stability (less variability) because the coefficient
of variance (CV) of the three-year 2006-2008 ACS data exceeds 5% for one-third of the states.13
The CV provides an estimate of the sampling error associated with the data. ACS indicates that
data with a lower CV has higher precision.14 ACS estimates for less populated states are less
reliable than its estimates for more populated states. In addition to sampling and non-sampling
error, data variability arises from actual population changes. Actual population changes are
dampened by the five-year ACS estimates because they are based on data collected over a five-
year period. This means that states with a large and rapid increase in LEP students will not
necessarily receive a timely increase in their grant allocation. Similarly the allocation to states
witnessing a rapid decline in LEP students will not be decreased as quickly as it would if three-
year data were used. The NRC panel did not analyze the five-year estimates.
Estimates of the National Research Council
Recommendation on Title III-A Allocations
This section explores the NRC recommendation by comparing estimated state allocations using
two new scenarios and the existing methodology, as required by statutory provisions and the
FY2011 appropriations act.15 For conceptual reasons, the NRC panel focused its analysis on two
of the state reported counts of LEP students: the state reported LEP students and the state reported
LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA. The state reported LEP students—a
count, which is required by statutory provisions, represents the broadest definition of LEP
students,16 and is well aligned with the conceptual aims of the program. For conceptual reasons,
the NRC panel deemed the state reported LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA
to be relatively objective across states and more consistent within states when evaluated against
the state reported LEP students. CRS has constructed estimates based on both indicators, in part,
to test the year-to-year volatility in allocations under the Title III-A formula. The two scenarios
are as follows.
Scenario 1. The first scenario represents the NRC report recommendation. State
formula allocations will be based on an LEP count calculated as the sum of 25%
of the state reported LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA and
75% of the ACS LEP students.
Scenario 2. In the second scenario, state formula allocations will be based on an LEP
count calculated as the sum of 25% of the state reported LEP students and 75%
of the ACS LEP students.

13 National Research Council. (2011). Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners.
Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part
A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and Assessment.
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, pp. 22,
47.
14 U.S. Census Bureau, A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What General
Data Users Need to Know. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2008.
15 The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10).
16 The total number of LEP students includes all students who were LEP during the year, even those who were assesses
during the year and reclassifies based upon achieving English language proficiency.
Congressional Research Service
13

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Each of the scenarios uses the ACS three-year estimates of the number of 3 to 21 year old
immigrant youth as used in FY2011 and as recommended by the NRC report.17 Each scenario is
compared to the status quo (ACS-only), which uses the currently used data and data sources—
ACS three-year estimates of the number of 5 to 21 year old LEP students who speak English less
than very well and ACS three-year estimates of the number of 3 to 21 year old immigrant youth.
The discussion compares changes in allocations for the 51 states, the 50 states and the District of
Columbia. Puerto Rico is excluded because the changes in data source do not affect its allocation
under either scenario since Puerto Rico’s maximum allocation is 0.5% of the allocation to all
states. The first comparison contrasts how the value of each state’s allocation using the two
scenarios would change when compared to the prior year’s allocation using the status quo
methodology. The second comparison evaluates over a three-year period the estimated year-to-
year changes in the value of each state’s allocation under the two scenarios and the status quo.
Change in Formula Allocations Under Each Scenario Compared to
Current Methodology
The potential impact of transitioning to a new data methodology on Title III-A state allocations is
important to policy makers and individuals implementing the program. In an effort to estimate the
impact on the allocations, ED’s FY2011 ACS-only estimated allocations are compared to
estimated FY2011 allocations using the two scenarios. Compared to the estimated FY2011 ACS-
only allocations, scenario 1, the NRC recommendation, would result in the majority of state
allocations changing by less than 10% (see Figure 3). Previous congressional action suggests
resistance to grant allocations decreasing more than 10% from one year to the next (see
Appendix A). Two states would receive a greater than 10% reduction in their estimated allocation
from the previous year (see Figure 3). The states are Mississippi (from $1.830 million to $1.636
million) and West Virginia (from $0.715 million to $0.636 million) (see Table C-1). Of the eight
states that would receive a greater than 10% increase in their estimated allocation from the
previous year (see Figure 3), Alaska would receive the largest (over 30%) increase from $1.117
million to $1.469 million. Table C-1 shows the estimates of the FY2011 state Title III-A
allocations as calculated for FY2011 and under the two scenarios.
In comparison to the estimated FY2011 ACS-only allocations, scenario 2 would also result in
very few state allocations changing by more than 10% (see Figure 3). Four states would receive a
greater than 10% reduction in their estimated allocation from the previous year (see Figure 3).
The four states are Mississippi, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and West Virginia (see Table C-1).
The grants to two states, Alaska and New Mexico, would increase by more than 25%.
During the transition to a new data source, there are at least two ways in which Congress could
prevent states from receiving a 10% or greater reduction in their Title III-A allocations from one
year to the next.
• A phased-in approach could be employed using varied weighting schemes. For
instance in the first year following the decision to incorporate state reported data

17 The Secretary of Education used three-year ACS data for the numbers of immigrant students for FY2010 and
FY2011 in accordance with appropriations acts. The National Research Council also recommended using three-year
ACS data for the numbers of immigrant students.
Congressional Research Service
14

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

into the LEP count, the number of LEP students could be calculated as the sum of
12.5% of the state reported count of LEP students and 87.5% of the three-year
ACS count for the numbers of LEP students. The second year calculation could
use the sum of 25% of the state reported count of LEP students and 75% of the
three-year ACS count for the numbers of LEP students.
• A second approach could provide a hold harmless of some percentage of the
state’s prior year allocation. For example, the hold harmless could be equal to
91% of the prior year.
Figure 3. Estimated Number of States for Which the Percent Difference between
the FY2011 Estimated Allocation under Scenarios 1 and 2 and the FY2011 ACS-only
Estimated Allocation Fell Into a Specific Range
16
14
es 12
tat
s 10
of
8
er
6
umb
4
N
2
0
<=-30%
and <=0%
and <=5%
and <=-20% and <=-10%
and <=-5%
and <=10% and <=20%
and <=30%
>30%
>-5%
>0%
>5%
>-30%
>-20%
>-10%
>10%
>20%
% Difference
Scenario 1
Scenario 2

Source: Figure prepared by CRS based on Table C-1.
Comparison of Year-to-Year Variability in Allocations Under
Each Scenario
In addition to the change in the allocation amount during the transition to a new data
methodology, another major consideration for choosing the data source and methodology is the
year-to-year variability in the allocations under a consistent methodology. Through various
appropriations acts, Congress has acted to reduce year-to-year variability in the Title III-A
allocations (see Appendix A). Preferably, the allocation will reflect actual population changes
while maintaining a certain level of stability from year to year.
Congressional Research Service
15

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

One way to summarize the variability is to examine the year-to-year change in allocations that
would arise if the same data methodology were used over several years. Figure 4 summarizes the
size of the year-to-year changes in the estimated Title III-A allocations over a three-year period
assuming level appropriations. Figure 4 presents the changes using the ACS-only methodology
and the data methodologies under scenarios one and two. There were 102 year-to-year changes
for the 51 states over the three year period for each of the data methodologies.18 The majority of
allocations change less 5% from year to year: 78 of the ACS only allocations, 79 of the
allocations based on scenario 1, and 85 of the allocations based on scenario 2. States that receive
more consistent allocations from year to year may be more able to plan and establish effective
language instruction programs. Using ACS only, year-to-year changes would have resulted in the
allocations of four states (Delaware, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, and West Virginia
(see Table D-1)) decreasing by more than 10% at least once. Scenario 1 would have resulted in
the allocation of West Virginia decreasing by more than 10% in one year and the allocation for
New Mexico decreasing more than 20% one year. Scenario 2 would result in the fewest number
of states (one—South Dakota) receiving an allocation that decreased by more than 10% from one
year to the next. Table D-1 presents the estimated Title III-A allocations over a three-year period
assuming level appropriations and the ACS-only methodology and the data methodologies under
scenarios one and two.

18 Puerto Rico is excluded from this analysis because its allocation does not change from year-to-year under any
methodology since it is capped at 0.5% of the total of the state allocations.
Congressional Research Service
16

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Figure 4. Number of Year-to-Year Changes in the Estimated Title III-A State
Allocations by Percent Change for Simulations Using the ACS-Only Methodology
and Scenarios 1 and 2 Over a Three-Year Period
Total number of year-to-year changes per methodology = 102
s 50
hange 40
c
ar
ye 30
-to-
ar 20
ye
er of 10
umb
N
0
<=-30%
and <=0%
and <=5%
and <=-20% and <=-10% and <=-5%
and <=10% and <=20% and <=30%
>30%
>-5%
>0%
>5%
>-30%
>-20%
>-10%
>10%
>20%
% Difference
ACS only
Scenario 1
Scenario 2

Source: Figure prepared by CRS based on Table D-1.
Congressional Research Service
17

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Appendix A. Changes in Title III-A Formula Data
History of Data Used
Prior to NCLB, ED collected annual data from the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the outlying areas on the numbers of LEP students; however, the state reported data were
incomplete and inconsistent.19 ED also collected annual data from the states on the numbers of
immigrant students in order to award state formula grants under the Emergency Immigrant
Education Program (ESEA Title VII, as enacted prior to NCLB).
In the first two years following enactment of the NCLB, ESEA provisions required that ED use
“the most accurate, up-to-date numbers” for the numbers of LEP and immigrant students—either
Census data or state reported data. The FY2002 and FY2003 state grants were calculated based
on 2000 decennial Census data of the numbers of LEP students and pre-NCLB state reported data
of the numbers of immigrant students.20
For FY2004 and beyond, ESEA provisions require ED to use either the ACS data or the numbers
of children assessed for English proficiency as required under Section 1111(b)(7), whichever are
the best data. Since suitable ACS data were not immediately available to calculate FY2004
grants,21 the FY2004 appropriations act allowed ED to calculate FY2004 state grants based on
2000 decennial Census data of the numbers of LEP students and the most recent state reported
data of the numbers of immigrant students.22
For FY2005-FY2008, ED used one-year ACS data estimates of the numbers of LEP students and
the numbers of immigrant students. For example, the FY2005 allocations were based on ACS
calendar year 2003 data. Relying on allocations based on one-year ACS data resulted in
considerable year to year fluctuations in state grant amounts:
• While the Title III-A appropriation for state formula grants increased by 6.5%
from FY2005 to FY2006, the allocation for 33 of the 51 states changed by at
least 10%, including 13 states that decreased by more than 10%.

19 Anneka L. Kindler, Survey of the States’ Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational Programs
and Services 2000-2001 Summary Report, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language
Instruction Educational Programs, Washington, DC, October 2002, p. 17, http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/
BE021853/Survey_of_the_States.pdf and Anneka L. Kindler, Survey of the States’ Limited English Proficient Students
& Available Educational Programs and Services 1999-2000 Summary Report, National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs, Washington, DC, May 2002, pp. 10-11,
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE021854/SEALEPSurvey9900.pdf.
20 For FY2002, ED provided an initial distribution of 50 percent of the funds allocated under the LEP portion of the
formula based on state-reported data. The final FY2002 allocations were based on 2000 Census data of the numbers of
LEP students and state-reported data of the numbers of immigrant students. Source: Department of Education, “Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education; Consolidated State Applications Under Section 9302 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act ,” 67 Federal Register 35977-35978, May 22, 2002.
21 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other Purposes ,
Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2673, 108th Cong., 1st sess., November 25, 2003, H.Rept. 108-401 (Washington:
GPO, 2003), p. 832.
22 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199).
Congressional Research Service
18

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

• While the Title III-A appropriation for state formula grants did not change from
FY2006 to FY2007, the allocation for 23 of the 51 states changed by at least
10%, including seven states that decreased by more than 10%.
• While the Title III-A appropriation for state formula grants from FY2007 to
FY2008 increased by 4.7%, the allocation for 20 of the 51 states changed by at
least 10%, including three states that decreased by more than 10%.
Some states whose allocations changed by more than 10% deemed these annual changes in the
amount of their state grant to be “drastic”23 and unsuitable for planning and operating quality
language acquisition programs from year to year. Of course, a portion of the change in a state’s
allocation reflects a changing population of LEP and recent immigrant students such that the
state’s need for programs changes.
In an effort to reduce the year to year variability in state allocations witnessed from FY2005
through FY2008, the FY2009 appropriations act required ED to use three-year ACS data for
states receiving less than 90% of their prior year allocation.24 The one-year ACS data were used
for the remaining states. Three states received a FY2009 allocation that was less than 90% of
their FY2008 allocation. Three-year ACS estimates are based on 36 months of data and thus are
more precise and reliable than one-year estimates. ACS also recommends using multi-year
estimates for small populations (LEP students) in large geographies (states).25
The FY2010 and FY2011 appropriations acts instructed ED to use three-year ACS data for all of
the states.26 From FY2010 to the estimated FY2011 allocations, the allocation for three of the 50
states changed by at least 10%, including two states that decreased by more than 10%. The total
appropriation decreased by 2% from FY2010 to FY2011.
State Data Improvements
Additional developments may affect the choice of data for future Title III-A grants. ED has
increased efforts to improve the relative accuracy of state data, in part, as a result of a 2006 GAO
report on the distribution of Title III-A funds.27 The improvements included ED providing clear
instructions on which students to report on the annual Consolidated State Performance Reports
(CSPRs), providing feedback to states regarding the consistency of data reported from year to
year, providing technical assistance to states on their annual data submissions through regular
monitoring and oversight, and providing training and guidance on English proficiency assessment
issues. For the 2007-2008 CSPR, ED began requesting that states report the unduplicated number
of LEP students in the state. The CSPR defines the number of LEP students as the unduplicated
number of all LEP students in the state who meet the ESEA LEP definition, including newly

23 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, committee print, 111th
Cong., 1st sess., March 2009.
24 Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8).
25 ACS recommends using multiyear estimates for small population subgroups and for areas with populations of less
then 65,000. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey
Data: What General Data Users Need to Know. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2008.
26 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117) and Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10).
27 U.S. Government Accountability Office, No Child Left Behind Act: Education’s Data Improvement Efforts Could
Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds, GAO-07-140, December 7, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
19

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

enrolled (recent arrivals to the U.S.) and continually enrolled LEP students, whether or not they
receive services in a Title III language instruction educational program, and excluding former
LEP students and monitored former LEP students. The CSPR further requires that the
unduplicated number of LEP students include newly enrolled students (recent arrivals to the U.S.)
and continually enrolled LEP students regardless of whether they receive Title III-A services, and
exclude former LEP students.
In addition to improving the accuracy of who to count as an LEP student, state assessment
systems have been improving. By 2007-2008, all of the 51 states had implemented ELPAs that
met the Title III-A requirements.28 As of May 2010, 22 of the 51 states were using the World
Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium standards and the aligned
ACCESS for ELLs assessment®.29 In 2011, ED awarded $10.5 million under the Grants for
Enhanced Assessment Instruments (Section 6112 of the ESEA) to a consortium of at least 24
states to develop and implement a common English language proficiency assessment system.30 If
states use a common ELPA and the same cut scores to designate a student as LEP and exit the
student from the LEP status, a major portion of variability in the definition of LEP between states
would be eliminated. The home language surveys and teacher and parent recommendations used
to identify potential LEP students would remain a source of variability.
Pending Changes
In 2011, the National Research Council completed a report commissioned by ED to recommend
the best data source or data sources for the Title III-A formula allocations.31 The report
recommended using a combination of ACS and state data for the number of LEP students and
recommended using ACS data for the number of immigrant students (see the subsequent section
entitled Recommendation of the National Research Council for more information). In response to
the recommendations in the National Research Council report, the President’s FY2012 budget
requests the ability for ED to use a combination of ACS and state data and a requirement that
states define LEP students more consistently.

28 Andrea Ramsey and Jennifer O’Day, Title III Policy: State of the States, American Institutes for Research (AIR),
prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-04-CO-0025/0017, May 2010.
29 Ibid.
30 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education, “Enhanced Assessment Instruments,” 76
Federal Register 1138-1144, January 7, 2011.
31 National Research Council. (2011). Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners.
Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part
A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and Assessment.
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Congressional Research Service
20

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Appendix B. Comparison of ACS and State LEP
Data Values
A comparison (see Table B-1) of the most recent data values from the ACS three-year estimates
and four types of state reported LEP data reveals significant differences in the values for the same
state. Table B-1 compares AY2009-2010 state reported data to the three-year ACS estimates for
CY2007-2009. The three-year 2007-2009 ACS data were used for the FY2011 allocations. The
state reported 2009-2010 data were available for use in calculating the FY2011 allocation. The
difference between the state reported values and ACS data indicates that the proportion of state
reported data to ACS data used in the formula allocation could affect the distribution of funds to
states. For instance, states that report more LEP students than ACS estimates could gain funding
as the proportion of state reported data in the Title III-A formula increases.
The state reported LEP students (4.6 million) and LEP students receiving Title III-A services (4.5
million) are 25% and 20% higher, respectively, than the ACS data (3.7 million) for the 51 states.
The state reported LEP students were 30% greater than the ACS data for 25 of the 51 states and
30% less for four states. That is, the data differed by 30% or more in 29 states. At the extreme, the
state reported LEP students exceeded the ACS data by 100% in five states: Alaska, the District of
Columbia, Kansas, New Mexico, and North Dakota. One possible explanation for the discrepancy
in data is that the ACS data may not reflect the impact of native languages in Alaska, New
Mexico, and North Dakota, which may not be the predominant language spoken at home but may
have a significant impact on students’ English language proficiency. The state reported LEP
students receiving Title III-A services were 30% greater than the ACS data for 17 of the 51 states
and 30% less for seven states.
Similarly, the state reported LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA and the state
reported LEP students receiving Title III-A services and scoring below proficient on recent ELPA
differ from the three-year ACS data on the numbers of LEP students for individual states. For the
51 states, the state reported LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA (3.4 million)
and the state reported LEP students receiving Title III-A services and scoring below proficient on
recent ELPA (3.3 million) are lower than the ACS LEP students (3.7 million). The state reported
LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA were 30% greater than the ACS data for 11
states and 30% lower for 12 states. The state reported LEP students receiving Title III-A services
and scoring below proficient on recent ELPA were 30% greater than the ACS data for eight states
and 30% lower for 15 states.

Congressional Research Service
21

Table B-1. Comparison of Most Recent Estimates of LEP Students: Three-Year ACS Data (CY2007-2009) and State Reported
Data (AY2009-2010)
A B
C
D
E
F G
H
I
J

State Reported LEP Students: 2009-2010
% Difference
LEP Students Scoring
LEP Students
Below Proficient on
ACS LEP
Receiving
Scoring Below
Recent ELPA and
Col. B
Col. B
Col. B
Col. B
Counts
Title III-A
Proficient on
Receiving Title III-A
and
and
and
and
State
(2007-2009) Totala
Servicesb
Recent ELPAc
Servicesd
Col. C
Col. D
Col. E
Col. F
Alabama 18,055
20,674
18,633
11,376 10,251
15
3
-37
-43
Alaska 6,210
16,759
15,375
15,206
13,929
170
148
145
124
Arizona 128,375
116,506
111,318
79,876 77,002
-9
-13
-38
-40
Arkansas
17,335 29,751 26,715 27,637
24,805
72 54 59
43
California 963,310
1,467,989
1,441,637
942,063 979,726
52
50
-2
2
Colorado 62,170
106,566
106,381
99,373 99,195
71
71
60
60
Connecticut 27,630
31,615
29,994
19,119
18,229
14
9
-31
-34
Delaware
5,650 7,028 6,912 6,025
5,909
24 22 7
5
District of Columbia
3,140
7,069
4,725
5,717
3,541
125
50
82
13
Florida 220,780
260,202
247,015
227,242
214,123
18
12
3
-3
Georgia 83,805
85,410
73,814
72,591 62,926
2
-12
-13
-25
Hawaii
14,290 18,734 17,918 17,199
16,383
31 25 20
15
Idaho 11,270
17,125
15,555
11,416
10,352
52
38
1
-8
Illinois
169,610 176,262 153,328 153,142
135,590
4 -10 -10 -20
Indiana 40,285
48,932
47,772
36,905
37,765
21
19
-8
-6
Iowa 15,525
20,934
20,934
16,356
16,356
35
35
5
5
Kansas
19,850 40,447 32,346 29,767
24,039
104 63 50
21
Kentucky 19,650
15,895
22,410
13,766 20,389
-19
14
-30
4
Louisiana 15,190
13,093
12,513
12,588 11,074
-14
-18
-17
-27
CRS-22

A B
C
D
E
F G
H
I
J

State Reported LEP Students: 2009-2010
% Difference
LEP Students Scoring
LEP Students
Below Proficient on
ACS LEP
Receiving
Scoring Below
Recent ELPA and
Col. B
Col. B
Col. B
Col. B
Counts
Title III-A
Proficient on
Receiving Title III-A
and
and
and
and
State
(2007-2009) Totala
Servicesb
Recent ELPAc
Servicesd
Col. C
Col. D
Col. E
Col. F
Maine 3,785
5,112
4,271
4,868
3,400
35
13
29
-10
Maryland 45,815
49,574
49,575
41,149 41,150
8
8
-10
-10
Massachusetts 62,095
58,174
44,166
37,353
25,928 -6
-29
-40
-58
Michigan 54,545
63,211
63,917
46,427 47,414
16
17
-15
-13
Minnesota
44,460 69,095 64,454 63,569
59,443
55 45 43
34
Mississippi 9,450
6,084
4,718
3,405 2,509
-36
-50
-64
-73
Missouri 25,940
21,076
16,659
18,162 14,027
-19
-36
-30
-46
Montana 2,500
3,804
1,343
1,556 1,102
52
-46
-38
-56
Nebraska 14,825
20,632
20,386
15,222 14,976
39
38
3
1
Nevada
51,670 73,498 86,131 62,707
74,669
42 67 21
45
New Hampshire
4,835
4,840
3,662
4,100
3,183
0
-24
-15
-34
New Jersey
103,205
55,656
54,004
44,767
43,657
-46
-48
-57
-58
New Mexico
25,905
64,024
57,268
17,514
10,758
147
121
-32
-58
New York
286,915
237,634
231,361
204,880
199,154
-17
-19
-29
-31
North Carolina
77,930
119,973
110,248
104,285
94,979
54
41
34
22
North Dakota
2,145
4,291
3,411
3,622
2,824
100
59
69
32
Ohio 47,185
40,933
39,581
27,799
28,199
-13
-16
-41
-40
Oklahoma
19,955 37,122 33,622 32,714
29,150
86 68 64
46
Oregon
43,805 65,395 52,560 55,402
42,567
49 20 26 -3
Pennsylvania 71,130
50,738
29,520
35,706
19,993
-29
-58
-50
-72
Rhode Island
10,915
6,739
6,542
5,310
5,154
-38
-40
-51
-53
CRS-23

A B
C
D
E
F G
H
I
J

State Reported LEP Students: 2009-2010
% Difference
LEP Students Scoring
LEP Students
Below Proficient on
ACS LEP
Receiving
Scoring Below
Recent ELPA and
Col. B
Col. B
Col. B
Col. B
Counts
Title III-A
Proficient on
Receiving Title III-A
and
and
and
and
State
(2007-2009) Totala
Servicesb
Recent ELPAc
Servicesd
Col. C
Col. D
Col. E
Col. F
South
Carolina
24,215 31,511 31,267 28,903
28,678
30 29 19
18
South Dakota
2,940
4,406
3,525
4,050
3,267
50
20
38
11
Tennessee 30,080
30,537
30,211
24,248 23,993
2
0
-19
-20
Texas 598,500
726,823
725,531
474,112
473,338
21
21
-21
-21
Utah
26,485 46,908 46,194 32,024
31,556
77 74 21
19
Vermont 1,550
1,763
1,341
1,415 1,100
14
-13
-9
-29
Virginia
53,235 97,763 97,505 80,542
80,322
84 83 51
51
Washington 89,070
93,069
92,547
81,957
81,503 4
4
-8
-8
West Virginia
3,250
1,560
1,521
854
830
-52
-53
-74
-74
Wisconsin
39,475 51,837 39,491 49,465
37,334
31 0 25 -5
Wyoming 1,710
2,243
1,290
1,942 1,199
31
-25
14
-30
Subtotal 3,721,650
4,647,016
4,453,117 3,407,393
3,308,940
25 20 -8 -11
Puerto
Rico
820,530
2,300 0 1,724
0 -100
-100
-100
-100
Total 4,542,180
4,649,316
4,453,117
3,409,117 3,308,940 2
-2
-25
-27
Source: ACS data from the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, Title III Accountability, Funding, as posted on its website on April 5, 2011, at
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/30/ACS2009LEP5_21.pdf and http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/30/ACS2009; and state data from the Consolidated State
Performance Reports, 2009-2010, http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/sy09-10part1/index.html.
a. The total state reported LEP students are the unduplicated numbers of all LEP students in the state who meet the LEP definition under ESEA Section 9101(25),
including recent arrivals to the United States and including students who did not receive services in a Title III language instruction educational program, as reported to
the U.S. Department of Education on the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) Section 1.6.2.1.
b. The state reported LEP students receiving Title III-A services are the unduplicated number of LEP students who received services in Title III language instructional
education programs, as reported on the CSPR Section 1.6.2.2.
c. The state reported LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA were calculated by CRS as the difference between the total state reported numbers of LEP
students and the total state reported numbers of LEP students who attained proficiency on a state annual ELPA, as reported on the CSPR Section 1.6.3.1.2.
CRS-24

d. The state reported numbers of LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA and receiving Title III-A services were calculated by CRS as the difference
between the total state reported numbers of LEP students receiving Title III-A services and the Title III-served LEP students who attained proficiency on the annual
state ELPA, as reported on the CSPR Section 1.6.3.2.2.

CRS-25

Appendix C. Estimated FY2011 Title III-A State Allocations and Change in
Allocations under ACS-Only Methodology and Scenarios 1 and 2
Table C-1. Estimated Title III-A State Allocations and Change in Allocations under ACS-Only Methodology
and Scenarios 1 and 2: FY2011
A B
C D
E
F
Estimated Allocation ($ in
thousands) Based on Scenario 1:
75% ACS LEP Students and 25%
Estimated Allocation ($ in
Estimated Allocation
State Reported LEP Students
% Difference
thousands) Based on Scenario 2:
% Difference
($ in thousands) Using
Scoring Below Proficient on
Between
75% ACS LEP Students and 25%
Between
State
ACS Onlya
Recent ELPAb
B and C
State Reported LEP Studentsc
B and E
Alabama 3,658 3,467
-5.2
3,594
-1.7
Alaska 1,117 1,469
31.5
1,424
27.5
Arizona 22,401 21,011
-6.2
20,911
-6.7
Arkansas 3,226 3,661
13.5
3,502 8.6
California 164,936
167,167 1.4
173,968 5.5
Colorado 10,771
12,340 14.6
11,757 9.2
Connecticut 5,760
5,533 -3.9 5,662 -1.7
Delaware 1,032
1,064 3.1
1,031 -0.1
District of Columbia
724
829
14.5
831
14.8
Florida 42,878 43,808
2.2
42,353
-1.2
Georgia 15,941 15,790
-0.9
15,287
-4.1
Hawaii 2,991 3,143
5.1
3,021
1.0
Idaho 2,253 2,294
1.8
2,357
4.6
Illinois 29,611 29,534
-0.3
28,403
-4.1
Indiana 7,438 7,440
0.0
7,392
-0.6
Iowa 2,951
3,031
2.7
3,004
1.8
CRS-26

A B
C D
E
F
Estimated Allocation ($ in
thousands) Based on Scenario 1:
75% ACS LEP Students and 25%
Estimated Allocation ($ in
Estimated Allocation
State Reported LEP Students
% Difference
thousands) Based on Scenario 2:
% Difference
($ in thousands) Using
Scoring Below Proficient on
Between
75% ACS LEP Students and 25%
Between
State
ACS Onlya
Recent ELPAb
B and C
State Reported LEP Studentsc
B and E
Kansas 3,723 4,151
11.5
4,256
14.3
Kentucky 3,789
3,634
-4.1
3,496 -7.7
Louisiana 2,980 2,932
-1.6
2,781
-6.7
Maine 743 795
7.0
756
1.7
Maryland 9,681 9,653
-0.3
9,422
-2.7
Massachusetts 12,583
11,864
-5.7
11,924
-5.2
Michigan 10,894 10,765 -1.2
10,728 -1.5
Minnesota 8,344
9,189 10.1 8,807 5.5
Mississippi 1,830
1,636
-10.6 1,635
-10.7
Missouri 5,109 4,903
-4.0
4,724
-7.5
Montana 557 530
-4.8
580
4.1
Nebraska 2,634
2,695 2.3
2,707 2.8
Nevada 9,020 9,589
6.3
9,326
3.4
New Hampshire
937
925
-1.3
896
-4.4
New Jersey
20,157
18,322
-9.1
17,666
-12.4
New Mexico
4,281
4,052
-5.3
5,359
25.2
New York
53,358
51,227
-4.0
49,255
-7.7
North Carolina
14,709
15,926
8.3
15,481
5.2
North Dakota
500
529
5.8
523
4.6
Ohio 8,947 8,379
-6.3
8,336
-6.8
Oklahoma 3,870
4,404 13.8 4,286 10.7
Oregon 7,950 8,515
7.1
8,314
4.6
CRS-27

A B
C D
E
F
Estimated Allocation ($ in
thousands) Based on Scenario 1:
75% ACS LEP Students and 25%
Estimated Allocation ($ in
Estimated Allocation
State Reported LEP Students
% Difference
thousands) Based on Scenario 2:
% Difference
($ in thousands) Using
Scoring Below Proficient on
Between
75% ACS LEP Students and 25%
Between
State
ACS Onlya
Recent ELPAb
B and C
State Reported LEP Studentsc
B and E
Pennsylvania 13,227
12,142 -8.2 11,932
-9.8
Rhode Island
2,068
1,895
-8.4
1,834
-11.3
South Carolina
4,771
5,020
5.2
4,814
0.9
South Dakota
533
583
9.4
558
4.7
Tennessee 5,846
5,725 -2.1 5,608 -4.1
Texas 101,460 98,739
-2.7
100,767
-0.7
Utah 5,277
5,564
5.4
5,748
8.9
Vermont 500 500
0.0
500
0.0
Virginia 11,221 12,396
10.5
12,286 9.5
Washington 16,622
16,639
0.1 16,005 -3.7
West Virginia
715
636
-11.0
630
-11.9
Wisconsin 6,772
7,264 7.3 6,859 1.3
Wyoming 500
500
0.0
500
0.0
Puerto Rico
3,386
3,386
0.0
3,386
0.0
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on the Department of Education Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Action, posted on website at http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/
budget/tables.html?src=ct, downloaded July 18, 2011; and calculated by CRS based on three-year ACS data provided by the National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition, Title III Accountability, Funding, as posted on its website on April 5, 2011, at http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/30/ACS2009LEP5_21.pdf and
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/30/ACS2009 and 2009-2010 Consolidated State Performance Reports posted on website at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/
account/consolidated/sy09-10part1/index.html, downloaded July 18, 2011.
Notes: All formula allocations based on three-year ACS immigrant counts and a Title III-A appropriation of $733,530,000.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the
legislative process. They are not intended to predict specific amounts states will receive. In addition to other limitations, data needed to calculate final grants may not yet
be available.
CRS-28

a. The estimated allocation ($ in thousands) using ACS-only was calculated based on the Department of Education Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Action, posted on
website at http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/tables.html?src=ct, downloaded July 18, 2011.
b. The estimated allocation ($ in thousands) based on scenario 1: 75% ACS LEP students and 25% state reported LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA
was calculated based on a LEP count calculated as the sum of 25% of the state reported LEP students scoring below proficient on recent ELPA and 75% of the ACS
LEP students. The immigrant count uses the ACS three-year estimates of the number of 3 to 21 year old immigrant youth.
c. The estimated allocation ($ in thousands) based on scenario 2: 75% ACS LEP students and 25% state reported LEP students was calculated based on a LEP count
calculated as the sum of 25% of the state reported LEP students and 75% of the ACS LEP students. The immigrant count uses the ACS three-year estimates of the
number of 3 to 21 year old immigrant youth as used in FY2011 and as recommended by the NRC report
CRS-29

Appendix D. Estimated Title III-A State Allocations Using Different LEP
Data Sources
Table D-1. Estimated Title III-A State Allocations Using Different LEP Data Sources Over Three-Year Period
Scenario 1: Combination of 75% ACS LEP
Students and 25% State Reported LEP
Scenario 2: Combination of 75% ACS
Three-Year ACS Estimates of
Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent
LEP Students and 25% State Reported
LEP Students
ELPA
LEP Students
ACS 2005-
ACS 2006-
ACS 2007-
ACS 2005-
ACS 2006-
ACS 2007-
2007 and
2008 and
2009 and
2007 and
2008 and
2009 and
ACS 2005-
ACS 2006-
ACS 2007-
State 2007-
State 2008-
State 2009-
State 2007-
State 2008-
State 2009-
2007
2008
2009
2008
2009
2010
2008
2009
2010
State
$ in thousands
Alabama $3,751
$3,729
$3,658
$3,703
$3,598 $3,467 $3,622 $3,652 $3,594
Alaska $1,049
$1,106
$1,117
$1,364
$1,456 $1,469 $1,338 $1,421 $1,424
Arizona
$22,413
$23,165
$22,401
$22,639 $22,316 $21,011 $22,609 $22,525 $20,911
Arkansas
$3,269
$3,214
$3,226
$3,559 $3,542 $3,661 $3,400 $3,417 $3,502
Californiaa
$172,233
$167,611
$164,936
$178,144 $170,996 $167,167 $181,720 $176,945 $173,968
Colorado
$10,739
$10,864
$10,771
$10,501 $12,092 $12,340 $10,901 $11,474 $11,757
Connecticut
$6,119
$5,791
$5,760
$5,804 $5,495 $5,533 $5,888 $5,669 $5,662
Delaware
$1,271
$1,158
$1,032
$1,140 $1,120 $1,064 $1,194 $1,105 $1,031
District of Columbia
$800
$694
$724
$830 $755 $829 $819 $753 $831
Florida
$43,633
$43,174
$42,878
$43,814 $43,678 $43,808 $43,152 $42,406 $42,353
Georgia
$16,313
$16,027
$15,941
$15,969 $15,677 $15,790 $15,377 $15,168 $15,287
Hawaii
$2,672
$2,815
$2,991
$2,844 $3,027 $3,143 $2,764 $2,950 $3,021
Idaho
$2,195
$2,230
$2,253
$2,398 $2,280 $2,294 $2,354 $2,370 $2,357
Illinois
$30,288
$29,859
$29,611
$28,997 $29,721 $29,534 $28,873 $29,628 $28,403
Indiana
$7,092
$7,182
$7,438
$7,065 $7,116 $7,440 $7,060 $7,079 $7,392
CRS-30

Scenario 1: Combination of 75% ACS LEP
Students and 25% State Reported LEP
Scenario 2: Combination of 75% ACS
Three-Year ACS Estimates of
Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent
LEP Students and 25% State Reported
LEP Students
ELPA
LEP Students
ACS 2005-
ACS 2006-
ACS 2007-
ACS 2005-
ACS 2006-
ACS 2007-
2007 and
2008 and
2009 and
2007 and
2008 and
2009 and
ACS 2005-
ACS 2006-
ACS 2007-
State 2007-
State 2008-
State 2009-
State 2007-
State 2008-
State 2009-
2007
2008
2009
2008
2009
2010
2008
2009
2010
State
$ in thousands
Iowa
$3,077
$3,112
$2,951
$3,067 $3,074 $3,031 $3,051 $3,052 $3,004
Kansas
$3,765
$3,681
$3,723
$4,208 $3,969 $4,151 $4,079 $3,990 $4,256
Kentucky
$3,643
$3,662
$3,789
$3,430 $3,481 $3,634 $3,297 $3,356 $3,495
Louisiana
$2,993
$3,137
$2,980
$2,905 $2,966 $2,932 $2,774 $2,868 $2,781
Maine
$774
$752
$743
$780 $778 $795 $761 $743 $756
Maryland
$9,479
$9,325
$9,681
$8,840 $9,114 $9,653 $9,015 $8,884 $9,422
Massachusetts $12,843
$12,761
$12,583
$11,636 $12,013 $11,864 $11,813 $12,036 $11,924
Michigan
$11,501
$10,966
$10,894
$11,510 $11,159 $10,765 $11,542 $11,159 $10,728
Minnesota
$7,994
$8,403
$8,344
$8,954 $9,164 $9,189 $8,532 $8,802 $8,807
Mississippi
$1,698
$1,721
$1,830
$1,507 $1,625 $1,636 $1,523 $1,605 $1,635
Missouri
$4,960
$5,092
$5,109
$4,712 $4,941 $4,903 $4,558 $4,687 $4,724
Montana
$517
$554
$557
$544 $557 $530 $648 $627 $580
Nebraska
$2,614
$2,627
$2,634
$2,675 $2,647 $2,695 $2,672 $2,674 $2,707
Nevada
$7,631
$8,233
$9,020
$8,500 $9,045 $9,589 $8,490 $8,904 $9,326
New Hampshire
$896
$790
$937
$854 $794 $925 $816 $766 $896
New
Jersey
$19,702
$19,694
$20,157
$17,743 $17,708 $18,322 $17,352 $17,269 $17,666
New
Mexico
$4,726
$4,623
$4,281
$5,423 $5,348 $4,052 $5,537 $5,354 $5,359
New
York
$52,447
$53,594
$53,358
$49,531 $50,821 $51,227 $47,718 $49,066 $49,255
North
Carolina $14,168
$14,927
$14,709
$15,650 $15,564 $15,926 $14,894 $15,132 $15,481
North
Dakota $500
$500
$500
$527 $500 $529 $553 $512 $523
CRS-31

Scenario 1: Combination of 75% ACS LEP
Students and 25% State Reported LEP
Scenario 2: Combination of 75% ACS
Three-Year ACS Estimates of
Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent
LEP Students and 25% State Reported
LEP Students
ELPA
LEP Students
ACS 2005-
ACS 2006-
ACS 2007-
ACS 2005-
ACS 2006-
ACS 2007-
2007 and
2008 and
2009 and
2007 and
2008 and
2009 and
ACS 2005-
ACS 2006-
ACS 2007-
State 2007-
State 2008-
State 2009-
State 2007-
State 2008-
State 2009-
2007
2008
2009
2008
2009
2010
2008
2009
2010
State
$ in thousands
Ohio
$8,794
$8,747
$8,947
$8,490 $8,469 $8,379 $8,140 $8,129 $8,336
Oklahoma
$3,974
$3,879
$3,870
$4,448 $4,232 $4,404 $4,370 $4,229 $4,286
Oregon
$8,285
$8,024
$7,950
$8,888 $8,672 $8,515 $8,539 $8,381 $8,314
Pennsylvania
$13,002
$13,016
$13,227
$11,978 $11,901 $12,142 $11,664 $11,665 $11,932
Rhode
Island
$1,993
$1,955
$2,068
$1,863 $1,849 $1,895 $1,808 $1,841 $1,834
South
Carolina $4,669
$4,677
$4,771
$4,872 $4,876 $5,020 $4,686 $4,730 $4,814
South
Dakota
$595
$562
$533
$660 $599 $583 $646 $568 $558
Tennessee
$5,797
$5,774
$5,846
$5,492 $5,653 $5,725 $5,406 $5,573 $5,608
Texas
$96,468
$99,187
$101,460
$94,938 $96,547 $98,739 $96,349 $98,497 $100,767
Utah
$5,166
$5,433
$5,277
$5,758 $5,638 $5,564 $5,847 $5,871 $5,748
Vermont
$500
$500
$500
$500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500
Virginia
$11,560
$11,616
$11,221
$11,617 $12,717 $12,396 $12,240 $12,518 $12,286
Washington
$15,019
$15,655
$16,622
$15,258 $15,645 $16,639 $14,902 $15,282 $16,005
West
Virginia
$822
$801
$715
$744 $713 $636 $710 $697 $630
Wisconsin
$6,888
$6,697
$6,772
$6,023 $7,145 $7,264 $6,796 $6,769 $6,859
Wyoming
$500
$500
$500
$500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500
Puerto
Rico
$3,386
$3,386
$3,386
$3,386 $3,386 $3,386 $3,386 $3,386 $3,386
Source: Table calculated by CRS based on three-year ACS data provided by the U.S. Department of Education Budget Service; the National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition, Title III Accountability, Funding, as posted on its website on April 5, 2011, at http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/30/ACS2009LEP5_21.pdf and
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/30/ACS2009; and 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 Consolidated State Performance Reports posted on website at
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/sy09-10part1/index.html, downloaded July 18, 2011.
CRS-32

Notes: All formula allocations based on three-year ACS immigrant counts and a Title III-A appropriation of $733,530,000.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the
legislative process. They are not intended to predict specific amounts states will receive. In addition to other limitations, data needed to calculate final grants may not yet
be available.
a. The state reported number of LEP students scoring below the proficient level was not reported by California for 2008-2009. A value was estimated by CRS using the
average percentage from 2007-2008 and 2009-2010.

CRS-33

Data Options for the English Language Acquisition Formula (ESEA Title III-A)

Author Contact Information

Cassandria Dortch

Analyst in Education Policy
cdortch@crs.loc.gov, 7-0376

Congressional Research Service
34