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 Prepared 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 yearto-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 ACSOnly 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 $686 million (93.5%) of the total Title III-A funding is estimated to be allocated under state formula grants. Table 1. Appropriations for the ESEA Title III-A Program: FY2002–FY2011 Fiscal Year Title III-A Appropriation ($ in thousands) Percent Change from Prior Year (%) Title III-A State Formula Grants Fundinga ($ in thousands) Percent Change from 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) Fiscal Year Title III-A Appropriation ($ in thousands) Percent Change from Prior Year (%) Title III-A State Formula Grants Fundinga ($ in thousands) Percent Change from 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, upto-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 Characteristic Evaluation ACS Data State 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. Stateprovided 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 Characteristic Evaluation ACS Data State Data Insensitivity to policy and methodological differencesh The ACS estimates are not sensitive to administrative practices or policy differences, although they may be sensitive to differences in demographic composition of the respondents. The state-provided 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 * (threeyear 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 fiveyear 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 threeyear 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-toyear 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 ACSonly 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 Number of states 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 >3 0% <= 30% >2 0% >1 0% and <= 20% and <= 10% and >5 % >0 % and <= 5% <= 0% and >-5 % and <= -5% % >-1 0% <= -10 and >-2 0% >-3 0% and <= -20 <= -30 % % 0 % 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 50 40 30 20 10 >3 0% <= 30 % and <= 20 % >2 0% and <= 10 % >1 0% and >5 % >0 % and <= 5% <= 0% and <= -5% >-5 % and >-1 0% an d >-2 0% an d >-3 0% <= -10 % <= -20 % 0 <= -30 % Number of year-to-year changes Total number of year-to-year changes per methodology = 102 % 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 State Alabama ACS LEP Counts (2007-2009) Totala Receiving Title III-A Servicesb J % Difference State Reported LEP Students: 2009-2010 LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPAc I LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPA and Receiving Title III-A Servicesd Col. B and Col. C Col. B and Col. D Col. B and Col. E Col. B and Col. F 18,055 20,674 18,633 11,376 10,251 15 3 -37 -43 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 Alaska CRS-22 A B C D E F G H State Maine ACS LEP Counts (2007-2009) Totala Receiving Title III-A Servicesb J % Difference State Reported LEP Students: 2009-2010 LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPAc I LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPA and Receiving Title III-A Servicesd Col. B and Col. C Col. B and Col. D Col. B and Col. E Col. B and Col. F 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 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 -58 286,915 237,634 231,361 204,880 199,154 -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 New Hampshire New York CRS-23 A B C D E F G H State ACS LEP Counts (2007-2009) Totala Receiving Title III-A Servicesb J % Difference State Reported LEP Students: 2009-2010 LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPAc I LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPA and Receiving Title III-A Servicesd Col. B and Col. C Col. B and Col. D Col. B and Col. E Col. B and 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 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 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 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 3,721,650 4,647,016 4,453,117 3,407,393 3,308,940 25 20 -8 -11 820,530 2,300 0 1,724 0 -100 -100 -100 -100 4,542,180 4,649,316 4,453,117 3,409,117 3,308,940 2 -2 -25 -27 Tennessee Vermont West Virginia Subtotal Puerto Rico Total 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. CRS-25 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. 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 State B C D E F Estimated Allocation ($ in thousands) Using ACS Onlya Estimated Allocation ($ in thousands) Based on Scenario 1: 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPAb % Difference Between B and C Estimated Allocation ($ in thousands) Based on Scenario 2: 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Studentsc % Difference Between 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 -0.1 724 829 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 District of Columbia CRS-26 A State B C D E F Estimated Allocation ($ in thousands) Using ACS Onlya Estimated Allocation ($ in thousands) Based on Scenario 1: 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPAb % Difference Between B and C Estimated Allocation ($ in thousands) Based on Scenario 2: 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Studentsc % Difference Between 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 -6.7 743 795 7.0 756 1.7 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 3.4 937 925 -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 5.2 500 529 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 Maine Maryland New Hampshire North Dakota CRS-27 A B C D E F Estimated Allocation ($ in thousands) Using ACS Onlya Estimated Allocation ($ in thousands) Based on Scenario 1: 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPAb % Difference Between B and C Estimated Allocation ($ in thousands) Based on Scenario 2: 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Studentsc % Difference Between 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 0.9 533 583 9.4 558 4.7 5,846 5,725 -2.1 5,608 -4.1 101,460 98,739 -2.7 100,767 -0.7 5,277 5,564 5.4 5,748 8.9 500 500 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 -3.7 715 636 -11.0 630 -11.9 Wisconsin 6,772 7,264 7.3 6,859 1.3 Wyoming 500 500 0.0 500 0.0 3,386 3,386 0.0 3,386 0.0 State South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont West Virginia Puerto Rico 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 Three-Year ACS Estimates of LEP Students ACS 20052007 ACS 20062008 ACS 20072009 Scenario 1: Combination of 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPA ACS 20052007 and State 20072008 State ACS 20062008 and State 20082009 ACS 20072009 and State 20092010 Scenario 2: Combination of 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Students ACS 20052007 and State 20072008 ACS 20062008 and State 20082009 ACS 20072009 and State 20092010 $ 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 $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 District of Columbia CRS-30 Three-Year ACS Estimates of LEP Students ACS 20052007 ACS 20062008 ACS 20072009 Scenario 1: Combination of 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPA ACS 20052007 and State 20072008 State ACS 20062008 and State 20082009 ACS 20072009 and State 20092010 Scenario 2: Combination of 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Students ACS 20052007 and State 20072008 ACS 20062008 and State 20082009 ACS 20072009 and State 20092010 $ 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 $774 $752 $743 $780 $778 $795 $761 $743 $756 $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 $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 $500 $500 $500 $527 $500 $529 $553 $512 $523 Maine Maryland New Hampshire North Dakota CRS-31 Three-Year ACS Estimates of LEP Students ACS 20052007 ACS 20062008 ACS 20072009 Scenario 1: Combination of 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Students Scoring Below Proficient on Recent ELPA ACS 20052007 and State 20072008 State ACS 20062008 and State 20082009 ACS 20072009 and State 20092010 Scenario 2: Combination of 75% ACS LEP Students and 25% State Reported LEP Students ACS 20052007 and State 20072008 ACS 20062008 and State 20082009 ACS 20072009 and State 20092010 $ 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 $595 $562 $533 $660 $599 $583 $646 $568 $558 $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 $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 $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 $3,386 $3,386 $3,386 $3,386 $3,386 $3,386 $3,386 $3,386 $3,386 South Dakota Tennessee Vermont West Virginia Puerto Rico 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. CRS-33 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. 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