In response to concerns raised by state officials and advocates for English-language learners, the federal government has issued a revised interpretation of how states should carry out a specific section of the No Child Left Behind Act that pertains to these students. The Department of Education has made adjustments to what critics viewed as excessively strict rules for assessing and reporting English language acquisition under Title III of the law, which allocates funds for English-language programs. Comments from officials in 24 states prompted the department to soften its proposal, which, although not a formal regulation, effectively determines how states are expected to implement Title III.
During a meeting with state officials responsible for English-language learners, Kathyrn M. Doherty, a special assistant to the Education Department’s deputy secretary, Raymond J. Simon, acknowledged the feedback received and announced the expectations of the final interpretation. Doherty emphasized that adherence to the interpretation would be a determining factor when the department evaluates states’ compliance with Title III. The original draft proposal from May 2 would have required states to use the same criteria for determining English-language proficiency under Title III as they do for determining a student’s status as an English-language learner under a different section of the law (Title I, which pertains to disadvantaged students, a category that includes many English-language learners). Officials in California—home to around one-third of the nation’s 5.1 million English-language learners—expressed strong criticism of the proposal.
In their response, California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and California State Board of Education President Theodore R. Mitchell referred to the proposed interpretation as suggesting "a completely new way" of defining English-language proficiency goals. Concerns were also raised by other Californians who argued that the proposed requirement would result in excessive standardization and diminish the role of parental input and teacher judgment in deciding when students should exit language programs.
The final interpretation, published on October 17 in the Federal Register, asks states to "strongly consider" aligning the two sets of criteria but does not explicitly address standardization. Doherty expressed her desire for states to standardize criteria among districts for determining when English-language learners have achieved a sufficient level of proficiency to exit programs, even though the final interpretation does not technically mandate this. Additionally, the federal government has backed down on a proposed reporting requirement under Title III that would have compelled states to find a way to report the progress of English-language learners who had not yet taken the state’s English-language-profiency test twice. The revised interpretation allows states to continue excluding students who have not taken the test twice from progress reports.
Some requirements from the initial proposal remain unchanged. States will no longer be permitted to carry over test scores from one year to the next for English-language learners who pass one of the four sections (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) of their state’s English-language-proficiency test. Instead, students must take all four sections each year until they pass all of them at the same time. Additionally, in setting targets for English-language learners, states may only take into account the length of time these students have been enrolled in English-language programs and not other factors like grade level or stage of English proficiency.
State officials generally view the revisions as an improvement, despite the introduction of new requirements. Steven A. Ross, a Title III consultant for the Nevada Department of Education and president of the National Association of State Title III Directors, appreciates the federal government’s willingness to allow for some flexibility. With a new administration on the horizon after the election, Ross stated that he would have adhered to the convenient parts of the original proposal while procrastinating on others.
