Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, provides funding to support programs for English Learners (ELs) 1-referred to in the Highlights • According to state reports, the 4.7 million students identified as ELs 2 in 2007-08 constituted about 10 percent of the nation's K-12 student enrollment, and the vast majority of these students were receiving services in programs supported in part by Title III funds. Looking more closely, ELs are unevenly distributed across states with larger proportions of ELs in southwestern states and higher rates of growth in several eastern states. • Only 11 states met their state-level Title III performance goals, or Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for the 2007-08 school year, but at the district-level, 59 percent of Title III districts nationwide met their AMAOs that year. However, variation and fluctuation in these state-defined performance goals make comparisons of performance across states and over time difficult. • One-quarter of Title III districts had missed their AMAO performance goals for 2 or 4 consecutive years based on 2007-08 and prior years' test results, subjecting them to such specific actions outlined in the law as developing an improvement plan, modifying their instructional program, or replacing educational personnel. On one hand, an analysis of three states with complete data revealed that half of such districts were already facing accountability actions because they were identified for improvement under the Title I accountability provisions of ESEA. On the other hand, this analysis indicates that Title III accountability at least doubled the number of districts facing ESEA-related scrutiny to improve EL outcomes in these three states. This brief draws primarily from data reported by states in their Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs) for 2004-05 through 2007-08. The CSPRs are annual reports required under ESEA that states use to submit information to the U.S. Department of Education about their activities and outcomes related to specific ESEA programs. The CSPR data reflect states' direct reports as of March 2009 and have not been validated by the U.S. Department of Education or other external parties. Other extant data sources for this brief include the Office of English Language Acquisition's (OELA) 2002-04 and 2004-06 Title III biennial reports (

Most education studies use a simple and convenient measure of poverty: the percentage of children eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. Although this measure provides the proportion of children coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, it does not capture all dimensions of poverty, such as neighborhood effects.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract