Title VII, Elementary and Secondary Education Act Becomes Title III, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

On December 18, 2001, the 107th Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) through fiscal year 2007. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on January 8, 2002. NCLB incorporated and strengthened the standards-based reform effort begun under the 1994 amendments to the ESEA and added an accountability system requiring that all students become “proficient” by the year 2013.

Perhaps no program was changed as dramatically by this seventh reauthorization of ESEA as what was known from the time of its enactment in the 1968 ESEA amendments as “Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act.” NCLB reflected a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the federal government and the states with regard to the education of English language learners (ELLs). As a result, not only did the number of students served and the funding mechanisms change, but the manner in which services to these students were to be planned, delivered, and evaluated also changed.

The passage of NCLB replaced Title VII with Title III, the centerpiece of which is a formula grant program to the states. While the ultimate goal of Title III is similar to that of its predecessor—improving “the education of limited English proficient children, by assisting the children to learn English and meet challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards” (Section 3115(a))—Title III changes the manner in which this is to be accomplished.

Title VII was a competitive grant program that provided “seed” money for states, districts, and institutions of higher education to design and implement new and innovative programs for ELLs. In the 2000–2001 school year, for example, under this “demonstration” program, approximately $449 million was distributed through 1,500 grants issued under 12 different grant programs. The bulk of these funds went toward capacity-building functions at the local and state level, including universities. Only a small fraction of the total ELL population—approximately 15%—received supplemental services through these Title VII programs.

Participation in Title VII was optional; school districts, community-based organizations, and institutions of higher education were eligible to submit proposals for seed money under Subpart 1 of the 1994 version of the law. This was done in order to develop and enhance their capacity to provide high-quality instruction to ELL children and youth and to help these children develop proficiency in English and, to the extent possible, in their native language. Another goal was to meet the same challenging state content standards and challenging state student performance standards expected for all children and youth.

Projects designed to develop, enhance, improve, reform, and/or upgrade relevant programs and operations were meant to increase the capacity of the school district to serve ELLs, and the districts were expected to continue the services after federal funding ended. Title VII programs were intended to demonstrate effective and innovative educational practices, not to [Page 846]serve all ELLs in the nation. Grant amounts varied based on the proposed activities of individual projects; a small district with little experience with ELLs might receive a large grant to develop a new program employing a new approach, whereas a large district with many ELLs might receive a small Title VII grant to add a new component to an existing program.

...