Arizona English language learner cost study

              Arizona E n g l i s h Language Learner C o s t Study
Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study
Submitted to The Arizona Legislative Council by The National Conference of State Legislatures



William T. Pound, Executive Director 7700 East First Place Denver, Colorado 80230 (303) 364-7700 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5400



February 2005



National Conference of State Legislatures



73



ii



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



The National Conference of State Legislatures is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories. NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system. NCSL has three objectives: � � � To improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures. To promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures. To ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system.



The Conference operates from offices in Denver, Colorado, and Washington, D.C.



Printed on recycled paper �2005 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. ISBN 1-58024-360-6



National Conference of State Legislatures



iii



CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................. iv Preface and Acknowledgments ........................................................................................ vii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... ix 1 . Cost of ELL Education in Arizona: An Overview ..................................................... 1 Studying the Cost of Education in Arizona ............................................................... 1 About NCSL .............................................................................................................. 1 About NCEF .............................................................................................................. 1 Project Outline .......................................................................................................... 2 Brief History of ELL Education in Arizona ............................................................... 2 Laws/Regulations/Rules Pertaining to ELL Students ................................................ 4 Study Methodology ................................................................................................... 4 Incremental Cost Definition ...................................................................................... 8 Commonly Used Acronyms in this Report ............................................................. 1 0 2 . School District Survey Cost Identification .............................................................. 1 1 3 . The Professional Judgment Panel Approach ............................................................ 1 8 Determining School Finance Adequacy ................................................................... 1 8 Arizona ELL Cost Study Professional Judgment Panels ........................................... 2 2 State Panel Recommendations for State-Level ELL Education Improvements ....... 2 4 State Panel Recommendations for District-Level ELL Education Improvements .. 2 7 State Panel Recommendations for School-Level ELL Education Improvements .... 2 8 National Professional Judgement Panel Analysis ..................................................... 2 8 National Panel Findings ........................................................................................... 3 1 National Panel Looks at State-Level ELL Education Improvements ....................... 3 8 National Panel Recommendations for District-Level Improvements to ELL Education .................................................................................................. 3 8 Effective Resource Management .............................................................................. 3 9 Cost Implications of the Professional Judgment Panel Models ............................... 3 9 4 . Analysis of Schools to Identify "Success" ................................................................. 4 0 General School Statistics .......................................................................................... 4 0 School Performance .................................................................................................. 4 2 ELL Student Performance ........................................................................................ 4 3 Predicting ELL Success ............................................................................................ 4 6 5 . On-Site School Interviews ........................................................................................ 4 9 Summary of Interview Responses ............................................................................ 5 0 6 . State Compliance Audits ......................................................................................... 5 3 NCSL Analyzes ADE ELL Data .............................................................................. 5 3 Summary and Trend Information on ADE State Compliance Audits .................... 5 3

National Conference of State Legislatures



iii



iv



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



ADE Audits Find Infractions ................................................................................... 5 4 ADE Monitoring Team Examines Compliance ....................................................... 5 4 ADE Monitoring Team Findings ............................................................................. 5 5 ADE Monitors Cite Board Rules ............................................................................. 5 9 ADE Data Monitoring Analysis .............................................................................. 6 0 Compliance Challenges ............................................................................................ 6 0 ADE Monitorinig Team Comments ........................................................................ 6 2 Triggers for Noncompliance ..................................................................................... 6 2 Costs of Compliance ................................................................................................ 6 2 7. ELL Funding, Federal Requirement and Successful Classroom Teaching Practices ............................................................................................................. 6 4 Appendices A. About the Contributors ................................................................................... 1 0 9 B. School District Cost Survey ............................................................................. 1 1 1 C. Second School District Cost Survey: Arizona ELL Cost Study ..................... 1 2 3 D. Fiscal Information Used to Calculate Cost Figures ......................................... 1 3 3 E . National and State Panel Panelist Qualifications ............................................ 1 3 4 F. Background of the Members of the National Panel ........................................ 1 3 6 G. State Panel Recommendations for State-Level ELL Education Improvements ................................................................................................ 1 3 8 H . National Panel Recommendations for State-Level Education Improvements ............................................................................................... 1 4 1 I. Questions to Discuss with School-Level Personnel ......................................... 1 4 4 Notes ......................................................................................................................... 1 4 6 List of Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Tables and Figure



Overview of Regulations Pertaining to ELL Students ......................................... 5 Characteristics of Each District/Charter School Included in the Sample ........ 1 3 Cost Factors Identified by State and National Professional Judgment Panels .. 2 4 Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for ELLs in Grades K-2 .......... 2 5 Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for ELLs in Grades 3-12 ......... 2 6 Categories of ELL Student Need for Educational Services ............................... 3 0 Professional Judgment National Panel Inputs and Costs for High-Need ELLs in Elementary Schools ............................................................................ 3 2 8 . Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for Lower-Need ELLs in .............. Elementary Schools ......................................................................................... 3 3 9 . Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for High-Need ELLs in Middle Schools ................................................................................................ 3 4 1 0 . Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for Lower-Need ELLs in Middle Schools ................................................................................................ 3 5 1 1 . Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for High-Need ELLs in High Schools ...................................................................................... 3 6 1 2 . Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for LowerNeed ELLs in High Schools ............................................................................ 3 7 1 3 . Achievement Profiles for All, Elementary, Mid-, and High Schools ................ 4 2 1 4 . AYP Determinations for All, Elementary, Mid-, and High Schools ................. 4 3 1 5 . Noncompliant Districts and Schools and the Number of Infractions Cited .............................................................................................. 5 5



National Conference of State Legislatures



Contents



v



1 6 . Statutes, Legislation and Rules for Which Schools Were Found Noncompliant ................................................................................................. 5 6 1 7 . Statutes, Rules and Legislation for Which Schools Were Found Noncompliant, by School Type ...................................................................... 6 0 1 8 . Types of Educational Programs for EL Students ............................................... 6 6 1 9 . Advantages and Challenges of Instructional Programs ..................................... 6 9 2 0 . Description of Basic Program, as Required by Federal and/or State Laws ....... 8 3 Figure 1 . An Overview of the Evaluation of an Educational Intervention ....................... 6 5



National Conference of State Legislatures



vi



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



National Conference of State Legislatures



vii



PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the summer of 2002, the Arizona Legislative Council contracted with the National Conference of State Legislature's (NCSL) National Center on Education Finance (NCEF) to identify the costs associated with educating English language learners (ELLs) in Arizona; obtain information from local educators on promising practices and personal experiences with Proposition 203 implementation; provide an analysis of Arizona Department of Education (ADE) compliance audits; and examine federal funding and promising practices in ELL education.In the summer of 2002, the Arizona Legislative Council contracted with the National Conference of State Legislature's (NCSL) National Center on Education Finance (NCEF) to identify the costs associated with educating English language learners (ELLs) in Arizona; obtain information from local educators on promising practices and personal experiences with Proposition 203 implementation; provide an analysis of Arizona Department of Education (ADE) compliance audits; and examine federal funding and promising practices in ELL education. This information could not have been obtained without the outstanding efforts of numerous individuals and organizations throughout Arizona. NCSL would like to thank the district and school survey respondents, professional judgment panelists, principals and other schoollevel staff who freely gave their time and support to assist in the completion of this project. N C S L also would like to thank state government representatives from the Arizona Department of Education, the Office of the Auditor General, and the Legislative Council. Thanks also go to the Arizona Education Association. The time, patience and support of these people made this report possible.This information could not have been obtained without the outstanding efforts of numerous individuals and organizations throughout Arizona. NCSL would like to thank the district and school survey respondents, professional judgment panelists, principals and other school-level staff who freely gave their time and support to assist in the completion of this project. NCSL also would like to thank state government representatives from the Arizona Department of Education, the Office of the Auditor General, and the Legislative Council. Thanks also go to the Arizona Education Association. The time, patience and support of these people made this report possible.



National Conference of State Legislatures



vii



viii



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



viii



National Conference of State Legislatures



ix



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I n 2002, the Arizona Legislature contracted with the National Conference of State Legislature's (NCSL) National Center on Education Finance (NCEF) to identify the total and incremental costs associated with educating English Language Learners (ELLs) in Arizona. As they pertain to a school district's ELL programs, incremental costs are those that provide ELL programs and that are in addition to the regular costs of conducting programs for English-proficient students. Incremental costs to educate ELL students do not include costs that replace the same types of services provided to English-proficient students.In 2002, the Arizona Legislature contracted with the National Conference of State Legislature's (NCSL) National Center on Education Finance (NCEF) to identify the total and incremental costs associated with educating English Language Learners (ELLs) in Arizona. As they pertain to a school district's ELL programs, incremental costs are those that provide ELL programs and that are in addition to the regular costs of conducting programs for English-proficient students. Incremental costs to educate ELL students do not include costs that replace the same types of services provided to English-proficient students.



About NCSL and NCEF

NCSL and NCEF assist state legislatures by providing information for making sound policy decisions based on reliable, objective and comprehensive analyses. As such, this study provides the best available information in a nonpartisan and non-advocacy manner.



Scope of the Work

Costs the state incurs for ELL education that are in addition to the costs of educating English-proficient students are described in this report as incremental costs. To calculate the incremental cost inputs needed to reach an appropriate funding level for ELL students in the state, NCSL staff used school district surveys, convened state and national professional judgment panels, and collected and reviewed school, district, and statewide data from Arizona Department of Education records and previous state studies. This report also includes: � � � A brief history of issues surrounding ELL education in Arizona. The results of ELL education costs determined through school district surveys . The results of the ELL education costs determined by the state and national professional judgment panels.



National Conference of State Legislatures



ix



x

� � � �



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



�



The results of analyses conducted at the school level. Information gathered from school-site interviews with principals, teachers and district staff . An examination of compliance issues and procedures in place for ELL education in Arizona. Information about additional ELL funding available to the state of Arizona and nationally renowned promising practices in ELL education. This section includes an analyses of the 2005 budget proposed by the Bush Administration. Background information on the methodologies and findings.



Background on ELL Education in Arizona

The federal court case Flores vs. Arizona in 2000, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the voter-initiated Proposition 203 in 2002 have contributed to making significant changes to how English Language Learner (ELL) education is conducted in Arizona. These policy changes have had an impact on numerous laws governing many a s p e c t s of education, including teacher qualifications, the availability of educational programs and student assessment. This study examines the cost of educating the state's ELLs and the cost of attaining ELL education adequacy.



NCSL Study Methodology

The study involves inputs from national, state, district and school-level education experts regarding costs associated with implementing Proposition 203 and the classroom realities of providing ELL education in Arizona. As a means of identifying what works along with needed changes, the NCSL team has engaged in the following activities to identify the costs associated with providing an adequate ELL education: � Distributed surveys to selected state school districts and collected and reviewed Arizona Department of Education data to determine local-level costs associated with educating ELLs. Convened two professional judgment panels with national and stare participants focusing on ELL educational needs, best practices in providing an adequate ELL education in the state and the costs of delivering ELL programming and services. Analyzed school performance data. Conducted school-site interviews. Reviewed recent required ADE compliance audits of the state's ELL programs. Reviewed promising practices in ELL programs. Investigated funding sources beyond the state for ELL education.



�



� � � � �



Each individual methodology has strengths and weaknesses. We have intentionally utilized a variety of methodologies in order to "triangulate" the research questions. For example, w e examined Arizona data in detail; we conducted a district survey; we conducted professional judgment panels; and we interviewed people in the field. Each piece yields valuable data that, when taken together, provide a range of information on which to base our conclusions.



National Conference of State Legislatures



Executive Summary



xi



Incremental Cost Increases in ELL Education Recommended

An important aspect of the study was the identification of an incremental cost associated with educating ELLs in Arizona. Three incremental cost levels were calculated based on the school district survey, data collected from the Arizona Department of Education and previous studies, state panel findings and national panel findings.



School District Survey Summary

The state of Arizona identified 38 school districts that could be surveyed to identify the costs of educating ELL students. NCSL worked with state officials to craft an appropriate sur vey. NCSL initially received responses from 14 districts. After reviewing the responses from the initial survey, a simplified instrument was developed and used to collect a second round of data from the districts. Two charter schools were added to the second round of surveys. Through an analysis of the school district surveys, an incremental cost of $670 per ELL student was identified. The largest cost component for the total incremental cost was for classroom teacher salaries for class size reduction, which was identified at $294.



Professional Judgment Panel Summary

The professional judgment methodology has been used in many states to identify adequate education funding levels and was the first methodology developed to address adequacy issues. Using the professional judgment approach, "education experts" are identified and convened into a panel that discusses the appropriate inputs required for students to meet specified education standards. For this study, NCSL convened two panels, one with ELL education experts from Arizona, and one with national ELL education experts. NCSL received input from ADE officials, legislative staff and others on individuals who would be appropriate to participate in the panels. Multiple perspectives on ELL education were represented in the state and national panel discussions led by NCSL.



State Panel Findings

The state panel concluded that an average incremental spending increase of $1,550 per ELL in Arizona's K-12 system is needed in order to provide an adequate education. The state panel recommended that greater financial resources be directed at ELLs in kindergarten through grade two ($1,785), than in grades 3-12 ($1,447). Members of the state panel a g r e e d that targeting resources at younger ELLs likely would facilitate the overall development of ELL student language, academic and social skills.



National Panel's Findings

The national panel concluded that various incremental costs were required for ELLs in Arizona based on their level of English proficiency (high need or lower need ELLs), grade level (elementary, middle, and high school), and socio-economic status (SES) as defined



National Conference of State Legislatures



xii



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



by eligibility for the federal free and reduced price lunch program (FRPL). The range of incremental funding levels went from $1,026 for lower need high school ELLs, to $2,571 for high need elementary ELLs. The average incremental cost for the six ELL groups identified by the panel was ??. Both the national and state panels found the newly adopted teacher quality requirements to be insufficient to meet ELL student needs.



School Level Analysis

An analysis of student performance within 137 schools in the 16 district sample was conducted to better understand the impact of teacher aides and small class sizes on student performance. Highlights of the analysis include: * * * For third grade ELL students, more aides are related to higher math scores. For fifth grade ELL students, more aides are related to higher reading scores. For eighth grade ELL students, larger class size is highly related to higher math scores and, to some extent, more aides are related to higher math scores. For tenth grade ELL students, fewer aides and larger class size are related to higher math test scores; more aides and smaller class size are related to higher reading scores.



*



Local Educator Perspectives

To better understand the school level realities of providing ELL education in Arizona, NCSL conducted school site interviews and analyzed school performance data. Some of the suggestions from the interviews and surveys are below: � � � � � � Additional funding is needed to ensure ELL student success. There is an overall lack of school-level awareness of Proposition 203 and its mandates. More highly qualified teachers and ELL teacher training are needed. Supplemental materials for ELLs are needed. Parental involvement is needed. ELL student data collection and use efforts are insufficient.



State Compliance Audits Summary

As part of the study, NCSL was asked to investigate issues related to school district compliance with ELL education mandates. In 2004, ADE monitors found 34 school districts and charter schools to be out of compliance in at least one area related to state and federal requirements and local rules and regulations. The NCSL research team identified major compliance challenges below. � � Rules pertaining to parental waivers were relatively more difficult for elementary school districts than for K-12 districts; Identifying reasons for parental waivers was more difficult for charter schools and less difficult for elementary school districts;



National Conference of State Legislatures



xiii

� � � Assessing all primary home language other than English (PHLOTE) students was equally difficult among elementary districts, K-12 districts and charter schools; Reassessment of ELLs for progress in English proficiency was most difficult for K-12 districts; and Monitoring fluent English proficient (FEP) students was most difficult for K-12 districts.



National Sources for ELL Education Funding and Promising Practices

There are funding sources from the federal government that could benefit the state's ELL students. In this report, NCSL has identified some of these potential funding opportunities and provided a guide to the most promising practices in English language acquisition and evaluates them in relation to federal requirements for scientifically-based research. This information could serve to facilitate the coordination of state efforts to maximize ELL education quality and to secure additional funding. Current funding opportunities that are specific to ELL students include both flow-through formula-based monies from the state and discretionary grants from the federal Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA). These funds support programs to provide: � � � � Professional development activities for current educational staff who wish to work with ELL students in the classroom. Teacher education for pre-service teachers who wish to work with ELL students. Career ladder opportunities for paraprofessionals. Enhanced educational opportunities to Native American and Alaska Native students in schools.



In addition, schools receiving formula-based Title I funds must involve ELL students.



National Conference of State Legislatures



xiv



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



National Conference of State Legislatures



1



1. COST OF ELL EDUCATION IN ARIZONA: AN OVERVIEW

This section of the report discusses the contract between the Arizona Legislative Council and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) to perform a study of the cost of English Language Learner (ELL) education in Arizona. It examines the recent history of ELL education in the state and the policies that have changed the way it is delivered. Methodologies NCSL used to perform the study and definitions of relevant study terminology also are provided.



Studying the Cost of ELL Education in Arizona

In the summer of 2002, the Arizona Legislative Council contracted with the National Conference of State Legislatures to identify the total and incremental costs associated with educating English Language Learners (ELLs) in Arizona. An initial draft report was submitted to the Arizona Legislative Council in August 2004.1 Upon receipt of comments on the initial draft report from the Arizona Legislative Council, NCSL extended its contractual arrangements with consultants who had contributed to the initial report-- Dr. Judith Wilde's Beta Group and Dr. Craig Wood of the University of Florida--to provide further assistance in completing the study. In addition, Dr. James Finkelstein of George Mason University, an authority in research design and policy analysis contributed and Dr. Mark Fermanich, who joined NCSL in January 2005 as the director of NCSL's National Center for Education Finance, also contributed to the final report. Biographical sketches of all contributors are included in appendix A.



About NCSL

NCSL is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization that serves the nation's legislators and staff. NCSL was formed in 1975 to improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures; to foster interstate communication and cooperation; and to ensure states a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system. NCSL is a prime source of information on state policy issues and state-federal relations. NCSL provides research and publications, consulting services, and the opportunity for policymakers to exchange ideas and communicate with each other on the most pressing problems states face and on solutions that work.



National Conference of State Legislatures



1



2



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



NCSL provides valuable information to state legislatures so they can make sound policy decisions based on reliable, objective and comprehensive analyses. This study attempts to provide the best available information in a nonpartisan manner to help state policymakers make more informed decisions.



About NCEF

In November 2000, NCSL created the National Center on Education Finance (NCEF) to help legislatures wrestle with the increasingly complex issues within education finance. Since its inception, NCEF staff have provided technical assistance in 25 states, responded to more than 1,000 information requests, and worked on several state education finance projects.



Project Outline

The report is divided into the following sections: � � � � � � � A brief history of issues surrounding ELL education in Arizona (Chapter 1). The results of ELL education costs determined through school district surveys (Chapter 2). The results of the ELL education costs determined by the state and national professional judgment panels (Chapter 3). The results of analyses conducted at the school level (Chapter 4). Information gathered from school-site interviews with principals, teachers and district staff (Chapter 5). An examination of compliance issues and procedures in place for ELL education in Arizona. (Chapter 6). Information about additional ELL funding available to the state of Arizona and nationally renowned promising practices in ELL education. This section includes an analyses of the 2005 budget proposed by the Bush Administration (Chapter 7). Background information on the methodologies and findings (Appendices).



�



Brief History on ELL Education in Arizona2 Two events--the Flores vs. State of Arizona3 (Flores) ruling in 2000 and the voter-approved Proposition 2034 in 2002--have significantly changed the legal landscape in Arizona for English Language Learners.5 The Flores case imposed a number of duties on the state Board of Education and the state superintendent of public instruction related to identifying and providing appropriate services to ELLs. Proposition 203 changed the state law governing the required services and assessments for ELLs, mandating that " ... all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English."6



Flores vs. Arizona

Citing the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974,7 in 1992 Miriam Flores sued in federal District Court, accusing the State of Arizona of failing to provide ELLs with a program of instruction designed to make them proficient in English and enable them to master the standard academic curriculum. Plaintiffs in the class action complained of



National Conference of State Legislatures



Cost of ELL Education in Arizona: An Overview



3



under-qualified teachers, inadequate processes for identifying and monitoring ELLs, and lack of funding for bilingual education programs. After winding its way through the federal court system since 1992, the Flores case resulted i n a Consent Order 8 approved July 31, 2000, requiring the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) to provide detailed procedures to address the majority of complaints against the state. The consent order changed the process for monitoring the progress of ELLs. It assigned to the State Board and the superintendent of public instruction new requirements for monitoring districts in addition to standardized achievement testing: classroom observations, curriculum reviews, faculty interviews, student record reviews, and an ELL program review. The order also required an evaluation of students in each of two years following their exit from ELL status, assessing them in reading, writing, math and academic content area skills to determine if they are performing satisfactorily compared to other students of the same age or grade level in the state. Students who do not perform satisfactorily (subject to parental consent) will be re-enrolled in an ELL program, given compensatory instruction, or both. The order left unresolved issues of teacher qualifications and funding (teacher qualifications would be addressed later). A bench trial focused on whether ADE adequately funded programs for ELLs, rather than on the adequacy of the programs themselves. The District Court found the state in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act owing to inadequate funding of ELL programs. The court found numerous problems with a 198788 cost study presented in the trial, and further disapproved of the fact that the state was appropriating only an additional $150 per ELL student. On October 12, 2000, Judge Marquez ordered the state to conduct a new study to ascertain the true cost of successful ELL programs. In response, the ADE conducted a comparative survey of districts and found that the cost of services for ELL students ranged from $0 to $4,600 per pupil.9 That study lacked a rationale for any specific funding recommendation, prompting the court to order a new study specifying appropriate services and the cost of providing them.



Proposition 203

Passage of the voter initiative Proposition 203 in 2000 significantly changed educational programs available to ELLs. The federal Bilingual Education Act of 196810 and the U.S. Supreme Court case Lau vs. Nichols11(1964) allowed districts flexibility to choose from a variety of program models for educating ELLs. Proposition 203 ended that flexibility in the state by repealing Article 3.1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which sanctioned a variety of program models, and replaced it with a requirement that all ELLs in the state be taught using Structured English Immersion (SEI).12 Before passage of Proposition 203, only about one-third of ELLs were enrolled in any of the bilingual education programs offered in the state, with twice as many placed in English as a Second Language (ESL) programs (a model essentially identical to the SEI approach prescribed by Proposition 203). An especially controversial aspect of Proposition 203 was its suggestion that children would become proficient in English in a year.13 The assumption that ELLs can learn English quickly in an all-English instructional setting is a crucial component of the SEI framework. In Lau vs. Nichols, the Court found that "students who do not know English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education" because they cannot understand classroom instruction. SEI advocates respond to the Court's observation by contending that young



National Conference of State Legislatures



4



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



children learn English so quickly that they can readily catch up to other students once classroom instruction has become understandable.14 Proponents of bilingual education, on the other hand, maintain that learning English well enough to get by in an all-English classroom takes years, not months, and that classroom instruction in the native language is necessary to help children keep up academically in the meantime. Thus, opponents of the measure warned that the negative effects of SEI are likely to show up most prominently in later years, when the accumulative effects of incomprehensible classroom instruction would begin to take a toll.15 Proposition 203 does permit exemptions to the SEI rule. Waivers allowing students to participate in alternative educational programs such as bilingual education are available for "older children" (at least age 10), children with "special individual needs," or children w h o "already know English." Waivers are granted at the discretion of the school s u p e r i n t e n d e n t . 16 In addition to prescribing a specific language education program for ELLs, Proposition 203 also provided that " ... a standardized, nationally normed written test of academic subject matter [be] given in English each year for children in grades two and higher."17



Laws/Regulations/Rules Pertaining to ELL Students

Four principal sources of laws, regulations and rules currently govern language acquisition programs. The main federal law is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Public Law 107-110. The specific parts of this law that are directly related to such programs are Title I: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged and Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. In addition to NCLB, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights has stated that school districts cannot limit alternative services to students who are not yet able to participate meaningfully in English-only classrooms. In addition to these federal laws and regulations several parts of the Arizona State Code have been amended as a result of Proposition 203 that specifically affect ELL students. Finally, a number of Arizona State Board of Education Rules have been promulgated. Table 1 summarizes specific requirements of the relevant laws, regulations and rules as they pertain to English Language Learners.18



Study Methodology

Through the contract between NCSL and the Arizona Legislative Council, NCSL was responsible for identifying: � � � � The total and incremental cost of providing appropriate educational services and programs to ELL students; Promising practices from around the state and country; Additional funding sources available to the state; and Compliance-oriented issues.



National Conference of State Legislatures



Table 1. Overview of Regulations Pertaining to ELL Students

Categories of Regulations Language of instruction Program Assessment Staff 4 qualifications English language proficiency Content achievement Parent & community

2



1



Identifi3 Regulations cation 5 U.S. Department of Education, Title I Part A & Title III Part A �1112(c)(1), �1114(b)1), �1115((c)(1), �3113(b)(6) �3115(a), (c)(1), & (f), �3121(a)(1), �3123(b)(1-3) �1119, �3123(b)(4) �1119, �3116(b, c) �1111(c)(5), �1119(a, c-g), �3115(c)(2)



Use approaches and methodologies based on scientificallybased research



Cost of ELL Education in Arizona: An Overview



Provide high-quality professional development to all educational staff and other school or community-based personnel, including paraprofessionals Districts must ensure that all teachers ... teaching in a program supported with funds under this part are highly qualified �3125 �3115(d)(1-5, 7) �1112(c)(1), �1114(b)1), �1115((c)(1) �1112(c)(1), �1114(b)1), �1115((c)(1) �1111(b)(3, 6)



Academic achievement in core academic subjects



�1111(b)(1), �3113(b)(2, 5), �3115(c)(1)



�3115(d)(6)



Attain English proficiency



�1111(b)(7), �3113(b)(2, 5), �3116(c)(1) �3115(c)(1) �3116(b)(23), �3122



Meet AYP and AMAOs



�1116(a-b)



�1111(b )(1-2), �3122



National Conference of State Legislatures

�3115(e)(1) �3116(c) Applies to all areas: �1111(h)(1-5). �3121 �3121(c)(1) �3121(a)(3-4), �3123(b)(8) �3121(c)(1) R7-2-306:G(5)



�3121(c)(1) �1111(b)(3), �3121(c)(1) �1111(b)(7), �3121(d)(1), R7-2-306:G(1-4) �1111(b)(3), �3121(d)(2), R7-2-306:F(4)



Report percentage not receiving waivers for reading or language arts assessments If experiencing substantial increases in immigrants, provide enhanced instructional opportunities for them Demonstrate teacher language fluency including written and oral communication skills � English and other language as appropriate Evaluate programs Report percentage of students making progress in attaining English proficiency, including percentage who have achieved English proficiency Report percentage of students who have made the transition into classrooms that are not tailored to LEP children LEA shall monitor for two years students who move into classrooms that are not tailored to LEP children Report percentage of children who are meeting same challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards as all children are expected to meet Report percentage of students who are not receiving waivers for reading or language arts assessments Assess students' English proficiency, including comprehension, speaking, listening, reading and writing Assess students' attainment of challenging state student academic achievement standards on same assessment(s) as



5



6



Table 1. Overview of Regulations Pertaining to ELL Students (continued)

Categories of Regulations

2



Identifi3 cation Program Assessment �1111(b)(3, 6)



Regulations all other students Assess LEP students in valid and reliable manner, including reasonable accommodations and, to the extent possible, assessments in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data



Language of instruction



Staff 4 qualifications



English language proficiency Content achievement



Parent & community



Parental/community involvement �1111(a), �1112(a, b), �3124 �1114(a)(2), �1120(b), �3115(g), �3124



�1111(d, h), �1118, �3115(d, e), �3116(b)



OCR, 1998



�15-752 �15-752 �15-752 �15-753A



National Conference of State Legislatures

�15-753B �15-754 �15-752 �15-753 R7-2306:B(1) R7-2305:C(1)



�15-756 �15-756 HB 2010



Coordinate with other entities that are carrying out programs that serve language-minority and LEP children Federal funds shall be used to supplement the level of federal, state and local public funds and in no case to supplant such funds U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights Children learn at different speeds; districts cannot limit alternative services to students who are not yet able to participate meaningfully in English-only classrooms Arizona State Legislation Subject to waiver exceptions, all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English Subject to waiver exceptions, all children shall be placed in English language classrooms LEP students shall be educated through sheltered English immersion, generally not more than one year If a parental waiver is granted, child shall be transferred to classes teaching through bilingual techniques or other generally recognized educational methodologies permitted by law Any decision regarding a waiver is to be made subject to the examination and approval of the local superintendent, under established guidelines All school children will be provided with an English language public education English language proficiency of LEP students will be assessed Former LEP students will be evaluated Parents must be notified of program placement Supplemental funding for LEP students Can use federal funds only for bilingual programs offered with waivers Arizona State Board of Education Rules Primary/home language of all students will be identified by parents on home language survey st PHLOTE students in K and 1 grade will be administered an oral English assessment



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



Table 1. Overview of Regulations Pertaining to ELL Students (continued)

Categories of Regulations

2



Identifi3 cation R7-2306:C(2) R7-2306:C(3) Program Assessment R7-2306:C(4) R7-2-306:D R7-2-306:E



Cost of ELL Education in Arizona: An Overview



Regulations PHLOTE students in grades 2-12 shall be administered oral, reading and writing English language proficiency tests Students who score below publishers' designated score for FEP are LEP English proficiency testing must be done within 60 days of beginning of school or 30 days of enrollment, unless LEA receives NCLB Title III or other funding that requires earlier testing For students being assessed for special education purposes, the LEA will use alternate procedures for assessing English proficiency LEP students may be concurrently enrolled in gifted program(s) and English language learning programs



Language of instruction



Staff 4 qualifications



English language proficiency Content achievement



Parent & community



National Conference of State Legislatures



Key to shortened terms: PD = professional development AYP = Annual Yearly Progress (defined for the content areas) PHLOTE = Primary or home language other than English AMAO = Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (defined for English language proficiency, English language attainment, & AYP) FEP = fluent English proficient LEP = limited English proficient 2 Regulations that have not been met, according to ... are highlighted 3 Students are identified for participation in Title III based on English language proficiency, schools are identified for participation in Title I schoolwide programs based on the percentage of low-income students/families - see �1113 for a description of school eligibility; individual students are identified for participation in Title I targeted assistance programs based on failure to meet the State's academic achievement standards � see �1115 for a description of student eligibility 4 Staff refers to any or all of the following: teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, administrators, and/or other educational staff 5 References to Title I are Sections that begin with "1", references to Title III are Sections that begin with "3"



1



7



8

Incremental Cost Definition



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



As these pertain to English Language Learners, incremental costs are those that provide ELL programs and that are in addition to the regular costs of conducting programs for English-proficient students. Incremental costs to educate ELL students do not include costs that replace the same types of services provided to English-proficient students. I n c r e m e n t a l costs may be associated with meeting federal and state ELL program requirements. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, those required by the O C R , NCLB, Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 15-751 through 756.01, Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R7-2-306, the Lau vs. Nichols decision, and the consent decree from Flores vs. Arizona.



The following general overview describes the methodologies used for each section of the report. More detailed information is included in each section of the report and in the appendices.



School District Survey

The Request for Proposals issued by the Arizona Legislative Council identified 38 districts that could be surveyed to identify the costs of educating ELL students. NCSL worked with state officials to craft an appropriate survey instrument. An initial survey was approved by personnel in the Arizona Auditor General's Office. After reviewing the responses from this initial survey, a simplified instrument was developed and used to attempt to collect additional data from the 14 public school districts that had responded to the initial survey and two charter schools. Research staff also sought additional information from Arizona Department of Education sources due to difficulties in obtaining adequate information from the districts. Findings from the district analysis are reported in chapter 2.



Professional Judgment Panels

This study examines appropriate inputs and cost components relating to providing an adequate ELL education in the state. The professional judgment panel methodology has b e e n used in many states to identify adequate education funding levels. Using the methodology, education professionals are identified and convened into a panel that discusses the appropriate inputs required for students to meet specified education standards. For this study, NCSL staff convened two panels, one of which included state ELL experts and another that included national experts in ELL policy and practice. NCSL received input from Arizona Department of Education officials, legislative staff and others about individuals who would be appropriate panel participants. Multiple perspectives of ELL education were represented in the state and national panel discussions led by NCSL. Each of the two panels met for one and one-half days. The findings of the professional judgment panels are reported in chapter 3.



National Conference of State Legislatures



Cost of ELL Education in Arizona: An Overview



9



Feedback from Local Education Personnel

T h e professional judgment panels data presented in chapter 3 provides information regarding the cost of attaining adequacy in ELL education. To better understand the schoollevel realities of providing ELL education in Arizona, NCSL developed a school survey that was initially sent to 60 schools based on a stratified random sample that took the following into account: percentage of ELLs academic performance, and school types (such as charter school). In addition, 10 schools and 1 district were selected from this sample to conduct on-site interviews. NCSL staff received only eight responses from this school survey. It was extremely difficult to convince school-level personnel to take the time to complete the survey. In addition, many did not have or know the information being sought. Many of the surveys that were returned contained responses that could not be verified or were in conflict with other data reported by schools to the Arizona Department of Education. Efforts to follow up on the returned surveys and to obtain additional responses were met with little response from local school officials. To mediate the lack of survey data from individual schools, NCSL conducted an analysis of various data elements contained in the ADE Report Card for each of the schools in the 16 districts included in the district sample (134 public schools and the 2 charter schools). Specific variables examined include enrollment, attendance/drop out rates, testing data, and teacher experience. These findings are reported in chapter 4. The findings from the school and district interviews are reported in chapter 5. Appendix I provides a list of questions asked of local education personnel during on-site interviews along with a copy of the original school survey.



Review of Compliance Issues and Procedures

The ADE is required to perform annual compliance audits on a select number of school districts and charter schools. These audits help ensure that certain ELL practices, programs and procedures are implemented. ADE personnel identify infractions within each district and help districts to create corrective plans of action. NCSL staff reviewed the most recent compliance audits performed by ADE personnel, detailed the types of infractions found in each district, and provided related summary information. These data illuminate the most pressing issues facing ELL education in the state and provide a basis for the creation of effective policies to reduce the likelihood of future infractions. Issues regarding compliance are discussed in chapter 6.



National Sources for ELL Education Funding and Promising Practices

Consultants from Beta Group identified national funding resources for ELLs and provided information about about scientifically-based research findings on effective programs and practices that promote ELL student achievement. In addition, they have also provided



National Conference of State Legislatures



10



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



information about federal funding and funding opportunities. These findings are presented in chapter 7.



Commonly Used Acronyms in this Report

AEA--Arizona Education Association AIMS--Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards ARS--Arizona Revised Statutes ADE--Arizona Department of Education CAL--Center for Applied Linguistics DeLSS--Development of Literacy in Spanish Speakers ELL--English language learner EO--English only speaking students ESL--English as a second language FLAP--Foreign language assistance program FEP--Fluent English proficient FRPL--Federal free and reduced price lunch program HQ--Refers to a "highly qualified" teacher under NCLB IES--Institute of Education Sciences LAS--Language Assessment Scale LEA--Local education agency LEP--Limited English Proficient N C E O -- N a t i o n a l Center for Educational Outcomes NCER--National Center for Education Research NCELA--National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition NICHHD--National Institute of Child Health and Human Development NCLB--No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 OCR--Office of Civil Rights OELA--Office of English Language Acquisition PHLOTE--Primary or home language other than English SS/HS--Safe schools healthy students SDAIE--Specially designed academic instruction in English SEI--Structured (or sheltered) English immersion SAIS--Student Accountability Information System (ADE database) SES--Socioeconomic status TBE--Transitional bilingual education TWB--Two-way bilingual education WWELL--What Works for English Language Learners (NCELA database) WICP--Written individualized compensatory plan



National Conference of State Legislatures



School District Survey Cost Identification



11



2. SCHOOL DISTRICT SURVEY COST IDENTIFICATION

This section of the report describes the survey administered to selected Arizona school districts. This survey provided school districts with a means of reporting what materials and personnel costs are currently incurred for services to ELL students. The data from the district surveys provided the basis for estimating current expenditures made by school districts for providing ELL instruction in Arizona.



Site Selection

The Request for Proposal requires that "A minimum of 10 school districts and charter schools shall be recommended." The RFP sets for the following criteria for selecting school districts for inclusion in the sample: Urban and rural, size, percentage of ELL pupils, types of school districts (elementary, union and unified), including at least one Native American school district, at least two charter schools, one of which having at least 100 ELL students comprising at least 50 percent of the student population, one high school district, one rural district other than a Native American school district and one urban school district. The RFP identifies 38 public school districts eligible for inclusion in the sample but does not identify eligible charter schools. Public School Districts The study sample includes 14 public school districts and two charter schools. The total number of students in each district was extracted from the National Center for Education Statistics, which is part of the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the data are from the Common Core of Data, District Detail for the most recent year available. The number of ELL students for each district was taken from the ADE Limited English Proficient (LEP Students ARS 15-754 for fiscal year 2002-03, the most recent year reported.) In addition, the Locale Code as reported by NCES was determined for each district for purposes of classification in terms of size and location.1 These locale codes were used to determine compliance with the selection criteria specified in the RFP.

National Conference of State Legislatures



11



12



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



The public school sample includes a reported 122,189 pupils, which represents 39 percent of the total number of pupils in the 38 districts eligible for inclusion in the study. The total number of LEP students in the 38 eligible districts as reported in the above referenced ADE document is 80,834. There are 38,809 pupils classified as LEP in the 14 sample districts, which represents 32 percent of the total.



This sample was determined to be appropriate. The 38 eligible public school districts represent 32 percent of the states total enrollment, slightly less than the proportion represented by the sample in relation to the eligible districts. This proportionality, as well as the distribution of the sample across size and type, provides a high level of confidence in representativeness. Beyond the requirements of the RFP, it was important to construct a sample that had a range in the concentration of ELL students. The percentage of ELL students in the 14 sample public school districts varied from a high of 68 percent to a low of 7.5 percent. Charter Schools In selecting charter schools to be included in the sample, it was determined that each school had to have current data reported to ADE in the form of a "Report Card." The RFP also set forth a criterion that at least one of the charter schools have "at least 100 ELL students comprising at least 50 percent of the student population." In reviewing the AYP data on charter schools, identifying a single school that met this criteria proved difficult. Ten charter schools met the criteria of having at least 100 ELL students enrolled according to the ADE ARS 15-754 report referenced above. However, only two of these charter schools met the criterion of having at least 50 percent of ELL students enrolled. One was eliminated from consideration because it did not meet AYP. The other was a high school and was not considered to be typical of charter schools in the state. Therefore, the two charter schools with the highest ELL enrollments were selected, both of which have ELL enrollments of more than 30 percent. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of each district/charter school included in the sample.



Conducting the Survey

As required by the RFP, "the contractor shall work with the Auditor General's office in developing the survey instrument." This requirement was met, and the resulting 131 question web-based survey (see appendix B) was made available to the 14 public school districts during the summer of 2004. These data were then analyzed by NCSL staff and reviewed by a panel of outside experts, including authorities in school finance, research design, policy analysis and English language acquisition. These experts raised a series of questions about the reliability and validity of the data, especially in terms of variance from data routinely reported by school districts to ADE. In reviewing the survey instrument itself, while understanding that it was approved by the Auditor General, the experts cautioned NCSL that such a long and involved instrument carried with it inherent problems, ranging from respondent fatigue to lack of expertise of any one individual to complete such a complex survey. In essence, this survey became the "beta test" of the school survey as described in NCSL's proposal.



National Conference of State Legislatures



Table 2. Characteristics of Each District/Charter School Included in the Sample



School District Survey Cost Identification



NATIVE AMERICAN DISTRICT



CHARTER SCHOOL



CHARTER SCHOOL WITH 100 ELL AND 1/2 POPULATION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT



RURAL DISTRICT (NON-NATIVE AMERICAN)



URBAN DISTRICT



SCH OL DISTRICT O



OTHER



TOTAL STUDENTS

14608 3265 19780 4196 2759 8545 1824 5195 2731 3096 23616 2862 27245 2467 639 929



LCC/1 LCC/1 LCC/1 SM LL TO N/6 A W LCC/1 LCC/1 INSIDE CBSA/8 LCC/1 LCC/1 URBANFRINGE/4 LLC/1 SM LL TO N/6 A W M C/2 C URBANFRINGE/4 X X see text see text



Alham ra School District #68 b Balsz School District #31 Cartwright Elementary School Chinle Unified School District Fowler School District #45 Isaac District Littleton Elem ntary District No. 65 e M dison School District a M rphy School District #21 u PAGE UNIFIEDSCH O DISTRICT OL Phoenix Union High School District Santa Cruz Valley Unified SD#35 Scottsdale Unified School District #48 Som rton School District #11 e Espiritu Com unity Development Corp. m Phoenix Advantage Charter School



7362 1442 7788 2389 1080 5315 501 714 1663 979 4330 1527 2041 1678 248 279



ELL STUDENTS



National Conference of State Legislatures



13



14



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



Based on this feedback and in discussion with the Arizona Legislative Council, NCSL conducted a second survey. Unlike the first survey in which the respondent was asked to provide all data, including that routinely reported to ADE, this survey asked only those questions that could be answered by the school district and were not available in ADE repor ts (see appendix C). This significantly reduced the amount of time necessary to complete the survey and also provided greater confidence in both the reliability and validity of the responses. The second survey was also followed up by a telephone interview for the purpose of obtaining missing data and clarifying unclear responses. However, even with a telephone follow-up to the second survey, only seven of the 16 districts had responded by our deadline of February 11. Neither charter school participated in the survey. Comparable data obtained from the first survey were used to fill in missing data for those districts that did not respond to the second survey. Obtaining accurate and reliable data is an ongoing issue in attempting to assess the costs of ELL programs in Arizona and such difficulties have been noted in previous studies. There is also little detail on ELL program expenditures available from Arizona Department of Education sources. What is available is of questionable quality. Even though all 16 districts and charters included in this study serve a substantial number of ELL students, only nine reported any ELL program expenditures on their state Annual Financial Report. Due to the interest of ELL program costs in Arizona the state may wish to consider expanding the reporting requirements in the Annual Financial Report.



School District Survey Identifies ELL Program Costs

As they pertain to a school district's ELL programs, incremental costs are those that provide ELL programs in addition to the regular costs of conducting programs for English-proficient students. Incremental costs to educate ELL students do not include costs that replace the same types of services provided to English-proficient students. The following discussion p r o v i d e s a breakout of ELL incremental costs by program area for the districts that participated in the study.



Student Instruction

This component includes incremental costs associated with instructing ELL students in the classroom. These costs may include salaries, benefits and supplemental pay (such as stipends, bonuses and special pay) for teachers and classroom aides. This component also includes any other salaries and benefits, purchased services, textbooks, instructional aides and materials (such as computer software, workbooks, etc.), other teaching supplies, and travel. A description of each component appears below along with an average of the related cost figures reported by districts that responded to the survey. Teacher Salaries and Benefits Cost: $294.00 The portion of ELL teacher salaries and benefits that can be attributed to ELL reduced class size as compared to the district's average non-ELL class size or to ELL resource teachers. Classroom Aide or Paraprofessional Salaries and Benefits Cost: $101.00 The total salaries and benefits for additional aides placed in ELL classrooms. In addition, the portion of ELL classroom aide salaries and benefits that can be attributed to ELL reduced class size initiatives as compared to the average non-ELL class size.



National Conference of State Legislatures



School District Survey Cost Identification



15



Stipends, Bonuses and Special Pay Cost: $26.00 The costs of providing stipends, bonuses and special pay to ELL staff, such as having E n g l i s h as a Second Language (ESL) endorsement, working in ELL classrooms, and successfully moving ELL students into proficiency status. Purchased Services Cost: $9.00 Items purchased for ELL instruction. Textbooks and Other Teaching Supplies Cost: $36.00 Costs relating to ELL textbooks that replace English-proficient textbooks, additional textbooks and other teaching supplies. Mileage Cost: $0.09 The costs of reimbursing mileage to ELL instructional staff for travel among schools. Administering ELL Programs Cost: $53.00 This component includes incremental costs associated with the administration of ELL programs, such as communicating with parents, processing waivers, providing interpreters, and evaluating programs. Costs may include salaries, benefits, purchased services, supplies and travel.



Student Assessment and Testing :



Cost: $36.00



This component includes incremental costs associated with assessing and testing students to identify ELL students, monitor their progress and follow up with exited students. These costs include salaries, benefits, purchased services, supplies (including testing materials), and accomodations.



Providing Compensatory Programs to Students:



Cost: $56.00



This component includes costs associated with providing compensatory programs to ELL students or to former ELL students who are not making satisfactory progress. Compensatory programs are those programs provided in addition to normal classroom instruction to help ELL students achieve academic proficiency. These programs may include individual or s m a l l group instruction, extended-day classes, summer school, and after-school or intersession programs. Costs related to compensatory programs include salaries, benefits and supplemental pay (such as stipends, bonuses, special pay) for teachers and classroom aides; any other salaries and benefits; purchased services; textbooks; instructional materials; and additional teaching supplies. Costs related to transporting ELLs to compensatory programs also are included, which cover the costs of salaries and benefits, purchased services and supplies (such as gasoline). T h e "Other Costs" category identifies costs associated with providing compensatory programs to students that could not otherwise be included in the specific line items. Student Transportation: Cost: $0.73



National Conference of State Legislatures



16



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



This component includes costs associated with transporting ELL students to a school where ELL programs are offered, if such a program is unavailable at their home school. Costs include salaries, benefits, purchased transportation services and supplies (such as gasoline). Staff Recruiting, Training and Development: Cost: $24.00



This component includes the incremental costs associated with recruiting ELL staff and providing professional development services for ELL staff. Costs include salaries, benefits, purchased services, supplies, and travel (such as hotel, transportation and per diem expenses). Also included are the costs for reimbursing tuition and books to staff for taking ELL courses. The "Other Costs" category identifies incremental costs for recruiting, training and developing staff that cannot otherwise be included in the specific line items. Other costs: Cost: $34.00



This component includes the costs of staff and services for ELL programs that cannot be classified in the previous items. Examples include bilingual school-home liaison, interpreters and translators. The expenditure data reported here should to be treated with some caution, however. This is due to the relatively small number of districts included in the sample, the need to combine data from two separate survey instruments administered at different points in time, and the general difficulty encountered when attempting to collect detailed fiscal data via surveys. A comparison to the 2001 ELL cost study conducted by the ADE2 suggests that the results here may be somewhat understated. That ADE study of 174 school districts and charters in Arizona found that incremental costs for ELL programs ranged from zero to $4,676. Changes in the way the state's school districts track and report program data may be required before definitive current expenditure data can be collected and analyzed.



Summary of School District Survey Cost Identification

Student Instruction Costs Teacher Salaries and Benefits Classroom Aide Salaries and Benefits Stipends, Bonuses and Special Pay Purchased Services Textbooks and Other Teaching Supplies Mileage Total Administering ELL Programs Student Assessment and Testing Costs Salaries and Benefit Costs Testing Accommodations Purchased Services $294.00 $101.00 $26.00 $9,00 $36.00 $0.09 $466.09 $53.00



$25.00 .53 $2.00



National Conference of State Legislatures



School District Survey Cost Identification



17

$9.00 $ 36.53



Supplies Total Compensatory Education Services Teacher Salary and Benefit Costs Teacher Aides Salary and Benefit Costs Textbook and Instructional Supplies Total Student Transportation Costs Recruiting, Training and Developing Staff Recruiting Professional Development Tuition and Fee Reimbursement Total Other costs School District Survey Total



$33.00 $13.00 $10.00 $ $ 56.00 .73



$4.00 $17.00 $2.00 $ $ 23.00 34.00



$669.35



National Conference of State Legislatures



18



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



3. THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT PANEL APPROACH

To overcome some of the limitations of previous efforts to attach a cost to ELL education in Arizona, NCSL has sought to look beyond district-reported data and those data collected routinely by the Arizona Department of Education. Because budget line expenditures are not uniformly reported by school districts, the potential exists for wide variation and nonuniformity in reported school district ELL expenditures. To thoroughly examine available information on what an adequate ELL education in the state may entail, NCSL also employed the professional judgment panel approach. Although this methodology, as noted below, was developed specifically to address overall finance adequacy issues in education, NCSL determined, in consultation with experts in the field of school finance, that this approach would yield important information about the dollar amount of incremental costs required to comply with all state and federal laws relating to language acquisition programs, including the Flores consent decree. The professional judgment approach used in this study is one of four methods commonly used for determining school finance adequacy. It has been applied in a number of states, including Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming. The following section describes the various approaches currently used to conduct adequacy studies in the field of school finance. It is included here to provide an overview of the various available methodologies and provide a justification of this approach.



Determining School Finance Adeqauacy1

Determining whether a state's school finance system is adequate is the newest and most dominant issue in school finance across the country (Ladd & Hansen, 1999). To be adequate, the school finance formula must provide sufficient of funds to enable schools to teach all--or at least all but the most severely disabled--students to state and district proficiency standards. This approach has great appeal for both policymakers and the courts; it seeks to link a funding level to a system performance level, a long sought goal. In many ways, this English Language Learners Cost Study could be considered a subset of a more broadly conceived school finance adequacy study.



18



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



19



But attractive though the adequacy goal is, it is not easy to define in specific, programmatic and dollar terms. Nevertheless, over the past ten years, education policy analysts have created four different methodologies for determining school finance adequacy (Ladd & Hansen, 1999; Odden & Picus, 2000): � � � � Economic cost function approach The successful district approach, i.e., identifying expenditure levels in districts/schools that meet performance benchmarks Professional judgment approach The evidence based, or the state-of-the-art approach.



Except for the cost function approach, different states are using various versions of the other three methods. Each is described in detail below.



Economic Cost Function Approach

The economic cost function approach relies on econometric techniques known as cost functions to estimate an adequate level of resources for schools. This method employs regression analysis with expenditure per pupil as the dependent variable, and student and district characteristics as well as desired performance levels as the independent variables.2 The question this approach seeks to answer is: how much money per pupil is needed to produce a given level of student performance? The result produces an adequate expenditure per pupil for the average district. This figure could be used, for example, as the Base Guarantee portion of the SEEK formula. That amount is then adjusted by one overall " i n d e x" to account for differences in pupil need and educational prices, as well as diseconomies of both large and small size across districts. The expenditure level is higher (lower) as the expected performance level is increased (decreased). The index adjustment would replace all current SEEK add-ons, except for transportation. No state currently uses this approach to determine adequacy, though cost function research has been conducted in New York (Duncombe, Ruggiero & Yinger, 1996; Yinger, 2001), Wisconsin (Reschovsky & Imazeki, 1999), Texas (Imazeki & Reschovsky, 1999; Reschovsky and Imazeki, 2002) and Illinois (Reschovsky & Imazeki, 2000). The Reschovsky and Imazeki cost function research found that the adequate expenditure levels in Wisconsin and Texas were close to the median spending levels in those states, when selecting state average performance as the student proficiency target. These studies indicated that there was substantial variation in the average adequacy level due to student and district needs, ranging from a low of 49 percent to a high of 460 percent of the average in Wisconsin, and a low of 75 percent to a high of 158 percent of the average in Texas. In most states, the adequate expenditure level estimated for large urban districts was 2-3 times the level estimated for the average district. Reschovsky and Imazeki (2001) produced an overall assessment of the utility of the cost function approach, arguing that it is the only approach, using data from all districts, which links a specific spending level to a specific performance level and thus is the preferred approach in a standards-based environment. The approach is limited however, by extant management, governance and education strategies, and does not capture efficiencies that could be produced by more dramatic re-engineering or restructuring. Further, the system is so complicated that state policymakers shy away from using it, as too few legislators or



National Conference of State Legislatures



20



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



members of the taxpaying public understand how it works. Moreover, the procedure produces cost figures just at the district level. It has not been used at the school level, and conceptually it may not be possible to do so. Ultimately, it is the school level at which adequacy levels need to be determined.



The Successful District Approach, Or Linking Expenditure Levels in Districts/Schools That Meet Performance Benchmarks

This method, which is being used in part by Ohio (Alexander, Augenblick, Driscoll, Guthrie & Levin, 1995; Augenblick, 1997), Illinois (Augenblick, 2001; Hinrichs & Laine, 1996), Maryland (Augenblick, 2001), and Mississippi, identifies districts that have been successful in teaching their students to state proficiency standards, and sets the adequacy level at the weighted average of the expenditures of such districts. Usually, atypical districts are eliminated from such analysis. Unfortunately, atypical districts generally include all big city districts, as well as very wealthy and very poor districts, and often very small rural districts as well. The result is that the districts identified in the analysis are usually nonm e t r o p o l i t a n districts of average size and relatively homogeneous demographic characteristics, which generally spend below the state average. One major criticism of this approach is that the adequate expenditure level is not relevant to big city districts, even when adjustments for pupil needs and geographic price differentials are added to the base. This is because the districts identified as meeting the state standards under the successful district approach are often relatively small (approximately 3,000 students) school districts with a relatively homogeneous student population, making it hard to adjust the model to fit a large district of over 50,000 students with high percentages of poor and minority children. This approach also lends itself to manipulation. Though analysts suggest that the adequate expenditure level should be the weighted average of all the expenditures of the districts meeting the performance benchmark, some policymakers have suggested using the average of only the bottom half of that sample, using an unweighted average, or even using the value of just the lowest expenditure district in the sample � in order to drive down the value of, and thus the state cost of, the adequate foundation expenditure level. Fi n a l l y, these two different systems--cost function approach and successful district approach--produce widely varying estimates of an adequate expenditure level, suggesting that more research is needed to determine why the large differences emerge. While both the successful district and cost function approaches link spending levels to performance levels, which is what many policymakers want, neither of these two approaches indicate how funds distributed to school districts would be used. They theoretically identify an adequate revenue level, but are silent on the types of educational strategies those funds could support. The next two approaches attempt to remedy this shortcoming.



Professional Judgment Approach

A third approach to determining school finance adequacy is known as the professional judgment approach. Under this methodology, the state creates several teams of state and local education leaders who independently identify effective school wide strategies and their key ingredient--numbers of professional staff and other resources. The ingredients



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



21



are then priced out and added up to determine the adequate fiscal base for a school; the base can then be adjusted for the differing characteristics of students and districts. Originally developed by Jay Chambers and Tom Parrish as the Resource Cost Model (Chambers & Parrish, 1983, 1994,) the professional judgment model (Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999) is b e i n g used in Oregon (Calvo, Picus, Smith & Guthrie, 2000), Maine, Maryland (Management Analysis & Planning, 2001a; Augenblick, 2001) and Wyoming (Guthrie, 1997; Management Analysis and Planning, 2001b). Adequacy studies using this approach are being conducted or have just been completed in a number of other states including Kansas (Augenblick, Meyers, Silverstein & Barkis, 2002), Montana (Meyers & Silverstein, 2002), Nebraska, New York and South Carolina. The basis of this approach is to bring together a group of educational professionals, ask them to identify the components of a "prototype" school that they believe would enable the professional staff to teach the students at that school to some predetermined standards level. Though this approach usually identifies effective educational strategies to some degree, and so provides a stronger linkage between funding levels and possible education p r o g r a m s , its major limitation is that it depends on the judgments of educational professionals in identifying strategies rather than research that actually shows a linkage between the strategy and student performance. Further, it sometimes provides for little differentiation between strategies for the average school and strategies for schools with higher concentrations of at-risk students (see for example, Management Analysis and Planning, 2001a). Nevertheless, it is becoming one of the most popular methods states are using to determine school finance adequacy.



The Evidence Based Approach3

The fourth approach takes research findings often though not always embodied in a high performance, or a comprehensive school design, identifies all the ingredients needed for all research identified educational strategies, determines a cost for each of those ingredients, and then uses that figure to determine an adequate spending base for each school. This system was developed in part because it identifies a set of specific educational programs and strategies that represent state-of-the-art knowledge about education effectiveness and puts a dollar figure on their costs. It combines many of the advantages of the preceding methods: 1 . Because each comprehensive school design draws upon research that links several e d u c a t i o n a l strategies to student performance, this method has a pragmatic orientation; 2 . B y drawing upon the compilation of strategies incorporated into several comprehensive school designs, it taps the craft wisdom of some of the best educators in the country who have compiled research on individual educational strategies into comprehensive, school wide strategies; 3 . When used, this approach provides schools with a funding level that allows them to deploy any of a large number of school wide educational strategies. Each of those strategies represents the best of what both research and top practitioners claim are the most effective educational strategies and represent current state-ofthe-art professional knowledge in education.



National Conference of State Legislatures



22



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



Odden (1997) identified the costs of seven school wide designs that were created by the New American Schools. In subsequent analyses he showed how via resource reallocation, they were affordable at schools spending at the average or median level of expenditure per pupil in the United States (Odden & Busch, 1998; Odden & Picus, 2000). His analysis, however, did not include adequate planning and preparation time for teachers and did not standardize costs across various designs, so his 1997 cost figures are underestimated. New Jersey adopted this approach to adequacy in 1998 when its Supreme Court concluded that state's school finance system was adequate because it provided more than sufficient funds for schools to adopt and fund via resource reallocation an enriched version of the most expensive comprehensive school design--the Roots and Wings/Success for All design. Since Roots and Wings, along with the Modern Red Schoolhouse, are the most expensive school designs now on the market, funding in New Jersey was not only adequate for these designs, but there was enough money for any of the other school wide educational designs as well (Odden, 1998). The last step in both the professional judgment and the evidence-based approach is appropriately pricing all ingredients, and setting teacher salaries. This is a step that usually uses a statewide average teacher salary, but such a strategy potentially understates or overstates what districts and the state might need to pay for quality teacher talent. There are two approaches to estimating a teacher salary that reflect what it actually takes in dollar terms to recruit and retain teaching talent. The first is to apply to the state's average teacher salary a cost-of-education-index that has been developed by the National Center for Education Statistics. This district level index quantifies the different prices school districts in a state--such as Kentucky--must pay for a given set of teacher qualities. This adjustment insures equal purchasing power of teacher salary dollars across geographic regions in the state. But this cost-index approach just quantifies price differences across regions/districts within a state; it does not indicate what the state average should be in relationship to the labor markets for teacher talent within which a state's districts compete for those teachers. A second pricing strategy, which this study is not able to deploy, is to determine salary benchmarks by labor market regions in a state; this approach would identify not only the salary benchmark for beginning-teachers, but also benchmarks for mid-career and topcareer teacher salaries. And the benchmarks would be calculated for the various labor markets within which the state's districts compete for teachers.



Arizona ELL Cost Study Professional Judgment Panels

For the purposes of this study, NCSL formed two professional judgment panels. The State Professional Judgment Panel consisted of seven individuals, six of whom were from LEAs; the other was from Arizona State University. The National Professional Judgment Panel included five members. In order to provide an overview of the expertise of each panel, Appendix E is provided. It identifies the panel on which each individual participated. In addition, this table provides information on each panelist's professional role, i.e., as a teacher, administrator or researcher/evaluator and at what level the individual works. Also indicated is the area of language of instruction expertise for each member, if appropriate. This rubric is based the work Zelasko and Antunez (2000).4 Areas of expertise for each



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



23



panelist not specifically related to language acquisition programs are identified including education finance, policy analysis, assessment and research/evaluation methodology. Because of the sensitive nature of this work, the names of individuals who participated in the state panel are not included. Biographical information for the members of the National Panel are included as Appendix F. Professional Judgment Panels Process The two panels met separately, each for one and one-half days, from June 10-12, 2004, in Scottsdale, Arizona. Each panel member was provided with the following documents prior to the meeting. � � � � � � � � Invitation Letter (email 6/8/04) Agenda Guidance Regarding the Implementation of A.R.S. 15-751-755 and Flores Consent Order SBOE Approved ELL Proficiency Standards-Writing SBOE Approved ELL Proficiency Standards-Listening and Speaking SBOE ELL Proficiency Standards-Reading Arizona Resource List Cutoff Scores for Arizona NCLB Requirements (http://www.young-roehr.com/ nwea)



Steve Smith, former senior policy specialist at NCSL, facilitated both panels. Prior to the meetings, Mr. Smith wrote to the panelists asking them to be prepared to: � � Identify both levels and types of inputs; Discuss student-to-teacher ratios, along with information about the effectiveness of teacher aides, teacher/coaches, lead teachers, etc. Explore teacher professional development in terms of the number of teaching days required, and specific approaches that seem appropriate and beneficial.



�



Specifically, NCSL asked the professional judgment panels to identify the number of personnel and associated materials needs per 100 students at the school and district levels. Both panels worked under the understanding that, due to wide variation in school and d i s t r i c t size and ELL student populations, appropriate adjustments to materials and personnel associated with ELL education adequacy would be needed. In each case, the p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment process began with identifying current costs associated with educating ELLs and non-ELLs in the state. Each panel then made appropriate adjustments based on compliance with the implementation of requirements stemming from Proposition 203, the Flores consent decree and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Average district and school staff salary figures were obtained by the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) and the Arizona Education Association (AEA). Corresponding costs for other educational materials and services have been provided per 100 pupils. Overall costs per ELL, the incremental cost increase per ELL over non-ELL students that would be needed to cover these costs, and the percentage of the increase that would be



National Conference of State Legislatures



24



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



needed to meet adequacy standards through the application of identified cost inputs are provided in tables 2 and 3 for the state panel and 5-10 for the national panel. All of the cost data in these tables have been adjusted to reflect 2003-04 costs. For a description of these adjustments see Appendix G. For the purposes of this study, NCSL requested that panel experts exclude the costs of transportation, facilities and reimbursable special education services when considering appropriate input figures. A preliminary draft of conclusions of both panels was prepared by NCSL staff and sent to all members of both panels for review. This allowed each panel member an additional opportunity to clarify any issues or recommendations and to "certify" their work. This additional step provides a high level of assurance that the findings presented below accurately reflect the work of both panels. Among the panel's recommendations impacting the cost of educating ELL students are reduced class sizes, additional ELL support staff, compensatory education services, and after school programs. See table 3 for a list of the program factors driving incremental costs. The panels also identified other support staff and services required for an effective ELL program. However, since these staff and services are also available to non-ELL students and were not thought to be required in greater quantity for ELL students, such as the school principal, guidance counselors, psychologists, and custodians, no incremental cost was incurred.



State Panel Analysis

Table 3. Cost Factors Identified by State and National Professional Judgment Panels Reduced class size: 5 students per class all grades state panel; 4-12 students per class depending on student SES and grade-level national panel Lead ELL teacher Additional paraprofessional Additional library media Technology Professional development Instructional supplies Equipment Technology Assessments: state panel only District ELL coordinator District English language acquisition specialist ELL specialist supervisor Interpreter or translator Parental involvement staff Compensatory education After school programs



The state panel recommended incremental spending increases based on grade level. Here, panelists agreed that, if educators have adequate resources to reach ELLs between kindergarten and grade 2, the students are far more likely to rapidly acquire English language skills and thrive in school. The panel concluded that the incremental spending for ELL students over nonELL students would total an average of $1,785 per ELL student in grades K-2 and $1,447 per ELL student in grades 3-12. For details, see tables 4 and 5.



State Panel Findings

The associated costs of the inputs required to provide an adequate ELL education as identified by the state professional judgment panel are higher than current state spending averages. The panel concluded that spending increases are necessary to provide an adequate education for Arizona's ELLs.



St a t e Panel Recommendations for State-Level ELL Education Improvements



T h i s section contains recommendations from individual panelists for improving the state's current approach to educating ELLs. These observations were made as part of the professional judgment process. (See appendix G for details.)



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



25



Table 4. Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for ELLs in Grades K-2



Per 100 ELL Students Teachers Lead ELL Teacher Paraprofessional Library Media Technology Guidance Counselor Cook Custodian OPT SLP Nurses Psychologists Clerical Principal Asst. Principal Substitutes Professional Development Costs Instructional supplies Equipment Technology Student Activities safety S Assessments District ELL Costs ELL coordinator ELAS ELL Specialist Supervisor Interpreter orTranslator Parental Involvement Other District Costs Compensatory Education After School Programs # Personnel 5.55 1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.75 0.5 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.075 0.5 0.2 0.2 1 Cost $3,051 $461 $146 $118 $118 $89 $82 $97 $60 $150 $44 $54 $121 $180 $165 $32 $56 $124 $31 $227 $21 $15 $32 Incremental Cost $660 $461 $73 $12 $12



$56 $21 $3 $16



$40



0.02 0.1 0.05 0.003 0.003



$18 $59 $34 $1 $1 $77 $258 $62 $5,991



$18 $59 $34 $1 $1



$258 $62 $1,785



Incremental Cost Percent Increase



42.4%



National Conference of State Legislatures



26



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



Table 5. Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for ELLs in Grades 3-12



Per 100 ELL Students Teachers Lead ELL Teacher Paraprofessional Library/Media Technology Guidance Counselor Cook Custodian OPT SLP Nurses Psychologists clerical principal asst. principal Substitutes Professional Development Costs Instructional supplies Equipment Technology Student Activities Safety Assessments District ELL Costs ELL coordinator ELAS ELL Spe Sup Interpreter/Translator Parental Involvement Other District Costs Compensatory Education After School Programs # Personnel 4.35 1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.75 0.5 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.075 0.5 0.2 0.2 1 Cost $2,392 $461 $146 $118 $118 $89 $82 $97 $60 $150 $44 $54 $121 $180 $165 $32 $56 $124 $31 $227 $21 $15. $32 Incremental Cost $429 $461 $73 $12 $12



$56 $25 $3 $16



$32



0.02 0.1 0.05 0.003 0.003



$18 $59 $34 $1 $1 $77 $155 $62 $5,221



$18 $59 $34 $1 $1



$155 $62 $1,447



Incremental Cost Percent Increase



38.3%



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



27



It should be noted that the state panel assumed that each teacher in the state would be highly qualified under NCLB. Among the panelists, there was some debate as to whether new state standards for ELL teacher training are sufficient to meet the needs of current ELL student populations. The majority of the panelists found the minimum teacher training standard to be insufficient.



ELL Assessment

� � Develop Native Language Assessments for ELLs receiving bilingual instruction through waivers. Develop and distribute a blueprint for aligning ELL standards with the Stanford English Language Proficiency (SELP) assessments.



ELL Education Policy Recommendations

� � � � � � � � Provide a clear ELL policy direction for districts and schools. Promote awareness of current state and federal mandates surrounding ELL education. Develop a manual that provides guidelines for the implementation of federal and state regulations regarding ELL student instruction. Provide a uniform definition of Structured (or Sheltered) English Immersion (SEI) and a working program model. Define the components of an effective SEI program; illuminate expectations and establish benchmarks for success. Establish rigorous state standards for ELL education. R e c o g n i z e the need for appropriate translation services to comply with federal requirements. Help districts to coordinate the development of translation certification and translator services to maximize the use of financial resources.



ELL Student Data, Evaluations and Oversight Recommendations

� � � Refine ELL student data collection and annually publish student data. Conduct comprehensive program evaluations. Add an ELL program evaluation process to the existing Proposition 203 language use monitoring system.



ELL Teacher Training and Professional Development

� � Effectively train teachers in requirements posed by state and federal laws, court rulings and standards. Require that teachers have at least 45 hours of specialized bilingual, English as a Second Language (ESL), or SEI endorsement within two years of employment.



State Panel Recommendations for District-Level ELL Education Improvements

This section reflects individual panelists' recommendations for improvement of the state's current ELL educational system. These observations were made during the course of the professional judgment process.



National Conference of State Legislatures



28

Oversight and Accountability

� � � �



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



Establish clear guidelines for ELL programs. Develop an instrument to monitor program effectiveness and school site implementation of guidelines. Emphasize language acquisition and literacy development in educator professional development activities. Ensure that the district consolidation plans address national ELL goals for achievement in language acquisition, literacy and mathematics required under NCLB.



State Panel Recommendations for School-Level ELL Education Improvement

This section reflects individual panelists' recommendations for improvement of the state's current ELL educational system. These observations were made during the course of the professional judgment process.



School Leadership Enhancement

Schools could benefit greatly if provided with an English language acquisition coach or specialist to work with staff on site-specific challenges with English language acquisition and meeting state and federal requirements.



School Improvement Plans

School improvement plans should include strategies for ELL instruction designed to address NCLB goals for students with limited English proficiency.



Native Language Support

Native language support programs for ELLs--such as dual language immersion programs and translation and interpretation services--are especially beneficial in schools that have large ELL student populations. Among districts with fewer ELLs, these programs likely can be shared to maximize the efficient use of resources.



National Professional Judgment Panel Analysis

The national professional judgment panel determined that incremental funding for ELL students should be based upon ELL student categories related to a number of factors that the panel agreed played significant roles in rapid English language acquisition. Categories were based on ELL student achievement expressed through assessment scores and socioeconomic status (SES). As the panel continued to refine its cost input data, it also considered the extent of need for ELL educational services at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Panelists used all these factors to identify and categorize ELL student need for educational services. The national panel initially created six categories for ELL student placement. From these six categories, the panel established the two broader categories: high need ELLs and lower need ELLs.



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



29



ELL Student Assessment Scores Help to Define Need

The national panel used ELL student performance on the Language Assessment Scale ( L A S ) as a factor in determining the appropriate ELL category of student need for educational services. The LAS measures student verbal, reading and writing proficiency. Students who score a 4 or 5 on the verbal section of the test, along with a 3 on the reading and writing portions of the test were not classified as ELLs. Historically, many students who have scored 4 or 5 on the verbal portion of the LAS scored lower than 3 on reading and or writing portions of the test. Such scores allow eligibility for ELL funding. Therefore, the panel initially classified students as either low-, medium-, or high-proficiency ELLs. Low Proficiency Based on LAS Scores In this model, students who scored a 1 or 2 on verbal and less than 3 on the reading and/ or writing portions of the test were categorized by the panel as low-proficiency. Medium Proficiency Based on LAS Scores The panel classified medium-proficiency students as those who score 3 on verbal, and less than 3 on the reading and/or writing portions of the test. High Proficiency Based on LAS Scores Students who score 1 or 2 on the verbal, and less than 3 on the reading and/or writing portions of the LAS were classified by the panel as high-proficiency.



ELL Student Socioeconomic Status Used to Define Need

The national panel also found that a student's eligibility for the federal free and reduced price lunch program (FRPL) plays a role in ELL student need. Panelists agreed that SES plays a significant role in English language acquisition. During the course of these discussions, NCSL staff directed the panel to examine only the incremental costs associated with ELL students and not those for FRPL students. The n a t i o n a l panel included SES as a component of the study because they found that environmental factors such as poverty play a critical role in language acquisition. For these reasons, the panel concluded that lower SES ELL students require additional support beyond Title I funding in order to meet Proposition 203 requirement for rapid English acquisition.



National Panel Identifies Six Initial ELL Categories

ELL students who are eligible for the FRPL with three classifications of proficiency based on LAS scores: � Low proficiency � Medium proficiency � High proficiency



National Conference of State Legislatures



30



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



ELL students who are ineligible for the FRPL with three classifications of proficiency based on LAS scores: � Low proficiency � Medium proficiency � High proficiency The national panel then reduced the six categories into two broad categories of ELL students: � High-need ELLs � Lower-need ELLs. The panel categorized ELL students as high-need based on the following criteria: � ELL students who are eligible for FRPL and identified as possessing low- or mediumproficiency based on LAS scores. � ELL students who are ineligible for FRPL but identified as low-proficiency based on LAS scores. The panel categorized ELL students as lower need based on the following criteria: � ELL student LAS scores at the high-proficiency level with FRPL eligibility. � ELL student LAS scores at the medium- and high-proficiency levels, while ineligible for FRPL. Table 6 outlines the national panel's work to establish categories of ELL student need for educational services.



LAS Assessment in Arizona's Districts

Table 6. Categories of ELL Student Need for Educational Services ELL Student SES Eligible for free and reduced lunch Not eligible for free and reduced lunch Low Proficiency High Need ELL Lower Need ELL Medium Proficiency High Need ELL Lower Need ELL High Proficiency Lower Need ELL High Need ELL



The national panel used ELL student proficiency in standardized exams to establish and to categorize ELL student need for educational services. Although school districts in Arizona have been allowed to use one of four proficiency assessments, the LAS currently is the most commonly used assessment. Members of the national panel mentioned that a uniform assessment developed by Harcourt currently is being implemented statewide. Because this assessment is so new, data are not yet available to suggest how this model could directly be applied in Arizona. The national panel recommends that the state adapt this model to assign multiple funding levels based on ELL student proficiency in the new assessment.



ELL Student Funding



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



31



Given the variations in ELL English proficiency, funding levels also should vary to ensure fairness and the efficient use of financial resources. Funding all ELL students at the same level could result in the state providing higher levels of funding than are needed for some ELL students. Creating multiple levels of funding for ELLs based on their proficiency might provide a means to approach equitable ELL funding levels while providing an opportunity to reduce state costs. The national panel noted that many states provide differentiated funding levels for special education based on student needs, and a similar approach might be warranted for educating ELL students.



National Panel Findings

The national panel concluded that the following incremental costs were associated with providing an effective instructional program for high-need and lower-need ELLs in Arizona.



High-Need ELLs

� � � At the elementary school level, the national panel recommends an incremental cost increase of $2,571, which brings total spending to approximately $6,766 (table 7). At the middle school level, the national panel recommends an incremental cost increase of $2,323, which brings total spending to approximately $6,372 (table 9). At the high school level, the national panel recommends an incremental cost increase of $1,997, which brings total spending to approximately $6,124 (table 11).



Lower-Need ELLs

� � � At the elementary school level, the national panel recommends an incremental cost increase of $1,236 which brings total spending to approximately $5,434 (table 8). At the middle school level, the national panel recommends an incremental cost increase of $1,227, which brings total spending to approximately $5,287 (table 10). At the high school level, the national panel recommends an incremental cost increase of $1,026, which brings total spending to approximately $5,240( table 12).



Tables 7 through 12 provide the appropriate inputs identified by the national panel for high-need ELLs in elementary, middle and high schools.



National Conference of State Legislatures



32



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



Table 7. Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for High-Need ELLS in Elementary Schools

Per 100 ELL Students Teachers Lead ELL Teacher Para Library/Media Technology Guidance Counselor Cook Custodian OPT SLP Nurses Psychologists Clerical Principal Asst. principal Substitutes Professional Development Costs Instructional supplies Equipment Technology Student Activities Safety District ELL Costs ELL coordinator ELAS ELAS Supervisor Interpreter/Translator Parental Involvement Coordinator Other District Compensatory After School # Personnel 7.14 0.25 1 0.183 0.22 0.15 0.75 0.5 0.1 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 1 Cost $3,926 $115 $291 $108 $129 $89 $82 $97 $60 $150 $66 $73 $121 $180 $165 $32 Incremental Cost $1,726 $115 $146 $11 $13



$56 $211 $52 $227 $21 $15



$56 $53 $5 $23



0.05 0.05 0.0055 0.003



$45 $29 $4 $1



$45 $29 $4 $1



0.003



$1 $77 $284 $59 $6,766



$1



$284 $59 $2,571



Incremental Cost Percent Increase



38.3%



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



33



Table 8. Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for Lower-Need ELLs in Elementary Schools Per 100 ELL Students

Teachers Lead ELL Teacher Para Library/Media Technology Guidance Counselor Cook Custodian OPT SLP Nurses Psychologists Clerical Principal Asst. principal Substitutes Professional Development Costs Instructional supplies Equipment Technology Student Activities Safety District ELL Costs ELL coordinator ELAS ELAS Supervisor Interpreter/Translator Parental Involvement Coordinator Other District Costs Compensatory Education After School Programs # Personnel 5 0.25 0.5 0.183 0.22 0.15 0.75 0.5 0.1 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 1 Cost $2,749 $115 $146 $108 $129 $89 $82 $97 $60 $150 $66 $73 $121 $180 $165 $32 $56 $201 $52 $227 $21 $15 Incremental Cost $550 $115 $11 $13



$56 $40 $5 $23



0.05 0.05 0.0055 0.003 0.003



$45 $29 $4 $1 $1 $77 $284 $59 $5,434



$45 $29 $4 $1 $1



$284 $59 $1,236 29.4%



Incremental Cost Percent Increase



National Conference of State Legislatures



34



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



Table 9. Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for High-Need ELLs in Middle Schools

Per 100 ELL Students Teachers Lead ELL Teacher Para Library/Media Technology Guidance Counselor Cook Custodian OPT SLP Nurses Psychologists Clerical Principal Asst. principal Substitutes Professional Development Costs Instructional supplies Equipment Technology Student Activities Safety District ELL Costs ELL coordinator ELAS ELAS Supervisor Interpreter/Translator Parental Involvement Coordinator Other District Costs Compensatory Education After School Programs # Personnel 6.25 0.25 1 0.24 0.22 0.15 0.75 0.5 0.1 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 1 Cost $3,436 $115 $291 $141 $129 $89 $82 $97 $60 $150 $66 $73 $121 $180 $165 $32 Incremental Cost $1,473 $115 $146 $14 $13



$56 $206 $67 $247 $52 $15



$56 $52 $7 $25



0.05 0.05 0.0055 0.003 0.003



$45 $29 $4 $1 $1 $77 $284 $59 $6,372



$45 $29 $4 $1 $1



$284 $59 $2,323



Incremental Cost Percent Increase



57.4%



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



35



Table 10. Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for Lower-Need ELLs in Middle Schools

Per 100 ELL Students Teachers Lead ELL Teacher Para Library/Media Technology Guidance Counselor Cook Custodian OPT SLP Nurses Psychologists Clerical Principal Asst. principal Substitutes Professional Development Costs Instructional supplies Equipment Technology Student Activities Safety District ELL Costs ELL coordinator ELAS ELAS Supervisor Interpreter/Translator Parental Involvement Coordinator Other District Costs Compensatory Education After School Programs # Personnel 4.54 0.25 0.5 0.24 0.22 0.15 0.75 0.5 0.1 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 1 Cost $2,496 $115 $146 $141 $129 $89 $82 $97 $60 $150 $66 $73 $121 $180 $165 $32 $56 $206 $67 $247 $52 $15 Incremental Cost $287.14 $115 $14 $13



$56 $41 $7 $25



0.05 0.05 0.0055 0.003 0.003



$45 $29 $4 $1 $1 $77 $284 $59 $5,287



$45 $29 $4 $1 $1



$284 $59 $1,227 30.2%



Incremental Cost Percent Increase



National Conference of State Legislatures



36



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



Table 11. Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for High-Need ELLs in High Schools

Per 100 ELL Students Teachers Lead ELL Teacher Para Library/Media Technology Guidance Counselor Cook Custodian OPT SLP Nurses Psychologists Clerical Principal Asst. principal Substitutes Professional Development Costs Instructional supplies Equipment Technology Student Activities Safety District ELL Costs ELL coordinator ELAS ELAS Supervisor Interpreter/Translator Parental Involvement Coordinator Other District Costs Compensatory Education After School Programs # Personnel 5.55 0.25 1 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.1 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 1 Cost $3,051 $115 $291 $141 $129 $148 $82 $97 $60 $150 $66 $73 $121 $180 $165 $32 Incremental Cost $1,089 $115 $146 $14 $13



$56 $180 $103 $284 $72 $26



$56 $54 $10 $77



0.05 0.05 0.0055 0.003 0.003



$45 $29 $4 $1 $1 $77 $284 $59 $6,124



$45 $29 $4 $1 $1



$284 $59 $1,997



Incremental Cost Percent Increase



48.4%



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



37



Table 12. Professional Judgment Panel Inputs and Costs for Lower-Need ELLs in High Schools

Per 100 ELL Students Teachers Lead ELL Teacher Para Library/Media Technology Guidance Counselor Cook Custodian OPT SLP Nurses Psychologists Clerical Principal Asst. principal Substitutes Professional Development Costs Instructional supplies Equipment Technology Student Activities Safety District ELL Costs ELL coordinator ELAS ELAS Supervisor Interpreter/Translator Parental Involvement Coordinator Other District Costs Compensatory Education After School Programs # Personnel 4.16 0.25 0.5 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.1 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 1 Cost $2,287 $115 $146 $141 $129 $148 $82 $97 $60 $150 $66 $73 $121 $180 $165 $32 $56 $206 $103 $284 $72 $26 Incremental Cost $324 $115 $14 $13



$56 $41 $10 $28



0.05 0.05 0.0055 0.003 0.003



$45 $29 $4 $1 $1 $77 $284 $59 $5,240



$45 $29 $4 $1 $1



$284 $59 $1,026



Incremental Cost Percent Increase



24.3%



National Conference of State Legislatures



38



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



National Panel Looks at State-Level ELL Education Improvements

This section contains recommendations from individual panelists for improvement of the state's current ELL educational system. These observations were made during the course of the professional judgment process. (Appendix H contains details.) � Accelerate English language acquisition to comply with Proposition 203 � Provide specialized teacher and administrator training � Provide local flexibility � Provide adequate funding � Enhance data collection and use It should be noted that national panel members assumed that each teacher in the state would be highly qualified under NCLB. Still, the panelists agreed that the recently adopted state standards for ELL teacher training are insufficient. Panelists also agreed that highneed ELLs should be taught by teachers with appropriate endorsements in ELL education. Here, the panel also found that higher minimum standards are likely are needed for teaching lower-need ELLs. Strategies recommended by the national panel to promote ELL student achievement: � I n c r e a s e ELL English proficiency by using scientifically based, research-driven instructional methodologies; no single approach will work for all ELLs. � Provide professional development for all school staff members who may work with ELLs; uniform guidelines on compliance issues are a critical component of such training. � Increase the involvement of communities and families to promote English language acquisition, overall academic progress and good citizenship.



National Panel Recommendations for District-Level Improvements to ELL Education

Here, individual panelists made recommendations for more effective district-level ELL education strategies to improve the overall quality and efficiency of ELL education in Arizona. It should be noted that the national panel assumed that each teacher in the state would be highly qualified under NCLB. Panel members agreed that all high-need ELLs should be taught by a teacher with an ELL-appropriate endorsement. Panelists also agreed that the higher minimum standards for ELL teacher training would be needed for the effective instruction of lower-need ELLs. � Enhance and unify school district oversight and accountability measures for ELL education. � Provide specialized and consistent training for administrators regarding federal and requirements specified by the Flores consent decree, NCLB and Proposition 203. � Recognize the need for translators to facilitate Office of Civil Rights (OCR) compliance and to promote rapid English acquisition. � Set and communicate a clear and uniform policy for ELL education to facilitate compliance. � Provide adequate funding to achieve an adequate level of training, materials and oversight for ELL programs. � Adopt specific ELL curricula, then recognize and treat English language acquisition as any other core academic subject area.



National Conference of State Legislatures



The Professional Judgment Panel Approach



39



�



Adopt and share a train-the-trainer model such as Structured Immersion Observation Protocol (SIOP) so that district ELL coordinators and specialists can train school-level lead teachers and classroom teachers.



Effective Resource Management

Members of the national panel reported that district-level resources may be more effectively used by exploring the following options. � Collaborate with universities to offer low-cost or free tuition programs for current teachers to enhance certification. One program option is Teachers of English for Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). � Enhance Teacher Certification. Dual-certified teachers are more likely to work effectively in content areas with ELLs at many proficiency levels; this provides greater flexibility for the district to meet the needs of changing demographics. � Share costs with neighboring districts whenever possible to provide staff development opportunities that might otherwise be inaccessible to smaller districts; operate newcomer programs for communities with a low incidence of ELLs; and develop curricula aligned with new state standards.



Cost Implications of the Professional Judgment Panel Models

The ELL program models developed by the two professional judgment panels provide an estimate of the incremental cost of meeting all federal and state laws and regulations relating to language acquisition programs, including the Flores consent decree. The increase in the incremental cost per ELL student in the 14 school districts examined in the previous section may be determined by comparing the current ELL program incremental costs r e p o r t e d in the school district survey with the estimated cost of the panels' recommendations. On average, the current incremental cost of the ELL programs in the 14 districts included in the study is $670 per student. In order to implement the state panels models these districts would have to increase their incremental expenditures per ELL student by $1,115 for students in grades K-2 and by $777 for students in grades 312. The range of the increase required to implement the national panel's model is $356 to $1,901 per ELL student depending on an individual student's level of need and grade level.



National Conference of State Legislatures



40



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



4. ANALYSIS OF SCHOOLS TO IDENTIFY "SUCCESS"

This section presents data about the schools in the sample. As described earlier in this report, the districts selected--a total of 16 school districts and charter school entities are representative of Arizona schools and meet the criteria originally set for this study. All schools within these districts and entities were selected, with the exception of special schools (e.g., special education schools or charter schools funded through districts). Within this section, the statistics that describe these schools as a whole and the academic achievement of those schools are presented, as well as statistics on the English language learners within these schools. Unless listed otherwise, the data come from the Arizona School Report Card 2003-04 for each school; these are available at www.ade.az.gov/ azlearns/. The data in the school report cards are by grade level (grades 3, 5, 8 and 11) for all students in the current and previous years, then are broken down by gender, ethnicity (African American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native and White, as appropriate), students with and without disabilities, English language learners, migrant students, and economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged. Numbers are presented for each group present in a school; if at least 10 students are in the subgroup, achievement data (mathematics, reading and writing) are presented. These data include the number and percentage of students tested and the mean scale score for the subgroup. In addition, the percentage of students who fall within the "fall far below" the standard, "approach" the standard, "met" the standard, and "exceeded" the standard are presented.



General School Statistics

The 14 school districts and 2 charter school entities encompassed 137 individual schools that serve 121,811 students (an average of 889.1 students, standard deviation of 524.1); enrollment ranged from 12 students to 2,654 students. The smallest schools were charter schools, and the largest were high schools. Arizona describes its schools as elementary, serving grades K through 6; midschool, serving grades 7 and 8; and high school, serving grades 9 through 12. However, there were schools



40



National Conference of State Legislatures



Analysis of Schools to Identify "Success"



41



in this sample of various configurations. Some of the configurations include schools that serve students in: � � � � � � � Grades Grades Grades Grades Grades Grades Grades K-12 � 1 school, K-5� 43 schools, 1-6 � 74 schools, 6-8 � 41 schools 7-8 � 48 schools 9-12 � 22 schools, and 11-12 � 1 school.



The School Report Cards reported on the number of staff serving each school. The typical school was served by: � � � � Administrators (average of 2.1, range from 1-5.4), Teachers (average of 49.3, range from 5-150), "Other: staff (average of 6.7, range from 0-75), and Educational aides (average of 10.7, range from 0-39).



NCLB requires that "highly qualified" teachers work in all core content areas (�1119), with each state defining the term "highly qualified." In these schools, the teaching staff typically can be described as follows: � Of those with less than four years of teaching experience, � Eleven have college degrees, � Two have master's degrees, � None have doctorates, and � None have "other" degrees or certificates; � Of those with four to six years of teaching experience, � Six have college degrees, � Four have master's degrees, � None have doctorates, and � None have "other" degrees or certificates; � Of those with seven to nine years of teaching experience, � Four have college degrees, � Five have master's degrees, � None have doctorates, and � None have "other" degrees or certificates; and � Of those with 10 or more years of teaching experience, � Seven have college degrees, � Fourteen have master's degrees, � Less than one have doctorates, and � None have "other" degrees or certificates. The schools reported activity rates for the year. There were: � ESL programs � 91 schools, � After-school programs � 43 schools, � Average attendance rates � 95 percent, � Average percentage of students who withdrew to continue studies at another school or to be home schooled � 21 percent,



National Conference of State Legislatures



42

� � �



Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study



� � �



Average percentage of students who transferred into the school from another Arizona school within the school district � 3 percent, Average percentage of students who transferred into the school who previously were enrolled in another school district � 10 percent, Average percentage of students who were promoted to the next grade or who met graduation requirements and received a traditional diploma at the end of the school year (including students who left school at age 22 or who had completed school and received a nontraditional diploma) � 98 percent, Average percentage of students who were retained at the end of the school year � 2 percent, Average percentage of students who were counted as withdrawn due to chronic illness, expulsion, or dropping out during the school year � 8 percent, and Average percentage of students who graduated within a five-year cohort at the end of the 2002-03 school year � 77 percent.



School Performance Arizona provides achievement profiles for most schools (small schools, new schools and alternative schools did not meet the criteria to achieve an achievement profile). These profiles are based on achievement data from the Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS), maintaining longitudinal data, the effect of mobility on students, and so on (for further information see www.ade.az.gov/azlearns). Schools are classified as excelling, highly performing, performing or underperforming (more recently, a still lower classification of "failing to meet academic standards" has been added). Table 13 provides an overview of all schools, then of schools that serve grades three, eight and 11--as grades that represent elementary schools, midschools and high schools. There are schools that serve students in K-12, but their students are divided into these three grade groupings, as well. The table indicates that the majority of schools are not performing well; less than one-quarter of all schools--or any grade grouping of schools (22.5 percent of all schools, 22.6 percent of elementary schools, 24.4 percent of midschools, and 15.8 percent of high schools)--are achieving in the "highly performing" or "excelling" categories.

Table 13. Achievement Profiles for All, Elementary, Mid-, and High Schools Number Highly Underperforming Performing performing W/data No data* 114 23 17.5% 57.9% 5.3% 71 16 21.8% 39.1% 3.4% 41 7 12.5% 52.1% 8.3% 19 3 -072.7% -0-



Grade grouping All (K-12) Elementary Midschool High school



Excelling 19.3% 17.2% 12.5% 13.6%



*Small schools, new schools and alternative schools did not meet criteria for determining an achievement profile. In addition, some schools may not be represented because they do not include the grade level chosen (schools that serve third grade were defined as th "elementary," schools that serve eighth grade were defined as "midschool," and schools that serve 11 grade were defined as "high school." These are grades at which AIMS is administered.

Title I requires that schools make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the core content areas of math and reading/language arts. To make AYP, a school must assess a minimum of 95 percent of students in each "significant subgroup;" a predetermined percentage of each "significant subgroup" must meet or exceed the standard in reading/language arts and mathematics; an average of at least 93.5 percent of students must attend the first 100 days



National Conference of State Legislatures



Analysis of Schools to Identify "Success"



43



of school (or .5 percent more than the previous year); and, high schools must attain at least a 70.5 percent graduation rate (or .5 percent more than the previous year). Subgroups include major ethnicities, English language learners, students with and without disabilities, m i g r a n t students, and both economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged students. Data for groups of fewer than 10 students (e.g., third grade English language learners) are not calculated in order to ensure students' privacy (see NCLB �1116). Schools that do not meet AYP for two consecutive years are identified for school improvement. In the first year of school improvement, the schools must develop and implement a plan f o r improvement, including teacher training, and must offer public school choice (transportation) to the parent's of all students who attend the school. Schools that do not meet AYP for three consecutive years are identified for school improvement for the second year. These schools must continue the school improvement requirements from year one and must offer supplemental educational services (tutoring) to the parents of eligible students who attend the schools. Schools that do not meet AYP for four consecutive years are identified for corrective action. These schools must continue the school improvement requirements from year two and must implement one of six possible actions listed in NCLB. Table 14 provides information about AYP for all schools, then for elementary schools, midschools, and high schools.