Summary Report of the Survey of the States' Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational Programs and Services, 1996-1997. Part I: Overview of Survey Findings; Part II: Survey Data, Tables, and Figures
Macias, Reynaldo F.; Nishikawa, Shinichi; Venegas, Juan (ill.)
University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, Santa Barbara, CA
No of pages:
Part I, 6 p.; Part II, 39 p.
This document is part one of a report summarizing information on the number of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the various states and outlying territories and jurisdictions, and the educational services provided or available to them. The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) conducts an annual survey of State Educational Agencies (SEAs) called the Survey of States' Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational Programs and Services (SEA Survey). This annual survey is authorized by Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (reauthorized in 1994). The results of the survey are publicly disseminated and used in policy and budgetary deliberations. Survey responses for 1996-97 were received from 54 states or jurisdictions (Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, among the states, did not participate, while American Samoa, Northern Marianas and Wake Islands, among the outlying territories, did not participate). The data were processed and analyzed to provide information in three areas: (1) the estimate of the non- and limited English proficient (LEP) student enrollment in the country; (2) the educational condition of these LEP students; and (3) the services received by these students. This document highlights each of these areas. Part two of the report contains a discussion of the report's purpose; an examination of data limitations and comparability; a series of tables and figures for the U.S. and by individual state illustrating LEP enrollment, educational condition and educational programs; and information on state criteria and methods used to identify LEP students. Appendices include state-by-state comments on LEP enrollment and data collection, and the 1996-97 SEA survey form.