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

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.


Date of Report: January 18, 2012
Number of Pages: 38
Order Number: R42154
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.  

Unauthorized Alien Students, Higher Education, and In-State Tuition Rates: A Legal Analysis

Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney

Currently, federal law prohibits states from granting unauthorized aliens certain postsecondary educational benefits on the basis of state residence, unless equal benefits are made available to all U.S. citizens. This prohibition is commonly understood to apply to the granting of “in-state” residency status for tuition purposes. Legislation to amend this federal law has routinely been introduced in each of the last several congressional sessions, including H.R. 1842/S. 952 in the 112th Congress, but such legislation has never been enacted. Meanwhile, some states have passed laws aimed at making unauthorized state residents eligible for in-state tuition without violating this provision. This report provides a legal overview of cases involving immigrant access to higher education, as well as an analysis of the legality of state laws that make in-state tuition rates available to illegal aliens. For a policy analysis of this issue, see CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation, by Andorra Bruno.


Date of Report: December 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS22500
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy

One of the major goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), is to raise the achievement of students who currently fail to meet grade-level proficiency standards. Because student achievement is widely believed to depend largely on the quality of instruction, the law also contains provisions designed to improve teacher quality. These provisions establish professional credentials for teachers and charge states and school districts with developing plans to improve teacher quality. According to the law, these plans must ensure that all core subjectmatter courses are taught by a highly qualified teacher and that poor and minority students have equal access to quality instruction.

To be deemed highly qualified, NCLB requires that teachers possess a baccalaureate degree and a state teaching certificate, and that teachers also demonstrate subject-matter knowledge for their teaching level. Elementary school teachers must show knowledge of basic elementary school curricular areas. Middle and secondary school teachers must demonstrate a high level of competency in all subject areas taught. Demonstration of subject-matter knowledge and competency may be shown by passing a state certification exam or licensing test in the relevant subject(s).

This report examines implementation of the NCLB requirement and examines the extent to which schools achieved the law’s goal of placing a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. After describing the highly qualified teacher requirement in detail, the report analyzes data from a national survey of schools conducted a year before NCLB became law. These data suggest that as many as four out of five teachers met the NCLB requirement prior to its enactment. Data reported throughout implementation of the law indicate that the proportion of highly qualified teachers increased each year, but that no state has reached 100%. In addition, analysis of these data also support concerns about the equitable distribution of teaching quality between poor and nonpoor schools.

This report concludes with a discussion of teacher quality issues that may be considered as the ESEA reauthorization process unfolds. Several of these issues have been the subject of waiver authority exercised by the Secretary of Education under both the current and previous administrations. The 112th Congress has taken up these issues along with reauthorization of the rest of the ESEA.


Date of Report: December 21, 2011
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R42127
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Student Loan Discharge Procedures for Borrowers Who Become Totally and Permanently Disabled: Current Issues and Policy Considerations

David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy

Umar Moulta-Ali
Analyst in Disability Policy

According to the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA; P.L. 89-329), federal student loans made through the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, and the Federal Perkins Loan program; and the service obligation of recipients of Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant are discharged if the borrower or recipient becomes totally and permanently disabled (TPD). These requirements are implemented according to regulations administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

An individual may qualify for a TPD discharge on the basis of being unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable mental or physical impairment that can be expected to last for at least 60 months or result in death. Additionally, an individual may qualify on the basis of having been determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to be “unemployable” due to a service-connected condition.

The criteria and procedures for federal student loan and TEACH Grant TPD determinations are distinct from the disability determination procedures used for other federal benefits—in particular, Veterans Disability Compensation (VDC) performed by the VA and certain disability determinations performed by the Social Security Administration (SSA) under the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. In addition, SSA disability determinations are not accepted by ED in lieu of its own TPD determinations. Concerns have been raised that requiring individuals who have received disability determinations through SSA procedures to undergo separate disability determinations for purposes of student loan discharge may be unduly burdensome.

This report provides a brief overview of the criteria and procedures used by ED to determine whether borrowers of federal student loans and recipients of TEACH grants are totally and permanently disabled, and thus eligible to have their student loan debt or service obligations discharged. It also briefly describes disability determination procedures used by the VA to determine “Individual Unemployability” for service-connected disabled veterans, the results of which may be considered in disability determinations for federal student loan TPD discharge; and by SSA to determine eligibility for SSDI and SSI benefits. The report also identifies and examines a series of options for incorporating aspects of SSA disability determination procedures into the disability determination process for federal student loan TPD discharge.

On October 28, 2011, ED announced the establishment of a negotiated rulemaking committee that will likely address the topic of amending regulations on student loan TPD discharges. Negotiated rulemaking is expected to occur in 2012.


Date of Report: December 1, 2011
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R42110
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Education of Students with Disabilities: Alignment Between the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Erin D. Lomax
Specialist in Education Policy

Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Social Policy

The largest sources of federal funding for elementary and secondary education are the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 108-446). The ESEA provides funding and services for a broad population of students, including disadvantaged students, migrant students, neglected and delinquent students, and students with limited English proficiency. Approximately 6 million students with disabilities ages 6 through 21 attend elementary and secondary schools; however, they are not afforded special services under the ESEA due to their disability status. The IDEA provides funding and services specifically for those students with disabilities. Both the ESEA and IDEA aim to improve the educational outcomes for students with disabilities. The ways in which they do this sometimes differ, and when the laws are not fully or clearly aligned it can be difficult for educators to plan and execute an appropriate education for students with disabilities.

In the 112th Congress, legislators may consider the reauthorization of the ESEA. This report focuses on four broad policy issues within both the ESEA and IDEA, which potentially create differing expectations or requirements for schools and teachers educating students with disabilities: 

• Standards. Under the ESEA, students with disabilities are taught to state academic content standards that apply to all children in the state. Under the IDEA, academic goals are established for each child in an individualized education program (IEP). 
• Assessments. Under the ESEA, students with disabilities participate in annual assessments that determine adequate yearly progress toward meeting expectations associated with state academic content and achievement standards. Under the IDEA, students with disabilities are assessed for identification purposes and for monitoring progress toward meeting goals articulated in their IEPs. 
• Accountability. The ESEA accountability system primarily measures whether schools and local education agencies are making adequate yearly progress in reading and mathematics achievement. The “students with disabilities” subgroup is expected to make adequate yearly progress. The IDEA monitoring system measures whether states are meeting certain compliance and performance indicators to determine whether the law is being implemented as intended. 
• Teachers. Both the ESEA and IDEA have requirements regarding “highly qualified” teachers. The ESEA includes a definition of “highly qualified” teacher as the term relates to teachers of elementary and secondary education. The IDEA also includes a definition of “highly qualified” teacher as the term relates to special education teachers of elementary and secondary education. Because students with disabilities spend the majority of time in the general education classroom, they are affected by both definitions. 

This report highlights issues pertaining to alignment and misalignment among ESEA and IDEA provisions within these areas, describes how statutory and regulatory language has sought to clarify these issues, and addresses specific issues that Congress may want to clarify as it considers the reauthorization of ESEA.


Date of Report: October 31, 2011
Number of Pages: 37
Order Number: R42070
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.