The cost of educating Arizona's English learners: legislative report

              THE COST OF EDUCATING ARIZONA'S
ENGLISH LEARNERS
January, 2001
We are presenting this cost study because we believe that the Legislature
should make funding for English learner programs a priority during this
session. An increase in funding is necessary not only to satisfy our
obligations under the Flores vs. Arizona lawsuit but also to ensure that
immigrant and Native American children who are not proficient in English
be given an equal opportunity for academic success.
Representative ~ o b Lbug~o (I
Rep@ser@ive Mary Hartley
Executive Summary
Almost a year ago, Judge Alfredo Marquez ruled in the Flores vs. Arizona lawsuit that
Arizona was inadequately funding programs for English learners, and as a result their
programs had "1) too many students in a class room, 2) not enough class rooms, 3) not
enough qualified teachers . . .4) not enough teacher aids, 5) an inadequate tutoring
program, and 6) insufficient teaching materials . . ." After the Legislature failed to take any
action, the Judge ordered that a cost study be done in time for the upcoming budget
session. This cost study complies with Judge Marquez's order.
The per student amount required to provide programs to English learners is $ 1527,
approximately ten times the current allocation in the school funding formula. In addition,
Students FIRST funding must be made available for additional classroom space.
PERSTUDENT COST OF =
Reducing Class Size From 25.5 to 20 $ 435
Paying Stipends to Qualified Teachers $ 100
Providing Training to the 50% of Teachers
Who Do Not Have the Required Endorsement $ 23
Hiring One Teacher Aide for Every 30
English Learners $ 302
Providing Compensatory Instruction for English
Learners Who Are Not Progressing $ 494
Purchasing Instructional Materials and Supplies $ 26
Testing for Language Proficiency $ 32
Administering Bilingual Education and Immersion
Programs $ 75
Granting Waivers $ 15
Miscellaneous Expenses L-25
TOTAL $1 527
These costs are necessary to:
correct the program deficiencies Judge Marquez noted in his decision,
comply with the provisions of the Flores vs. Arizona consent decree, and
implement the provisions of Proposition 203.
For fiscal year 2000, the Department of Education reports that there were 125,000 English
learners. Funding each one at $ 1527 would cost $191 M, about $170 M more than was
allocated to schools. The Legislature must appropriate that amount for the FY 2002 and
2003 budgets in order to settle the federal Flores vs. Arizona lawsuit and to ensure that
children who do not know English have an equal opportunity for academic success.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE ..................................................................................................... 1
TIMELINE OF EVENTS ................................................................................. 3
FLORES VS . ARIZONA LAWSUIT .................................................................. 5
His tory of the Lawsuit. ................................................................................................... 5
Provis ions of the F lores vs . Arizona Consent Decree ...................................................... 6
Impact of the F lores vs . Arizona Consent Decree on Program Costs ...............................8
PROPOSITION 203 ....................................................................................... 9
What Did Proposition 203 Do? ....................................................................................9.
What Didn't P ropos ition 203 Do? .............................................................................1. 0
Will Proposition 203 Limit Funding for English Learners to One Year? ......................... 11
Impact of Propos ition 203 on Program Costs ..............................................................1. 2
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 15
1988 Cost S tudy .........................................................................................................1. 5
Methodology of this Study ..........................................................................................1.5
REDUCING CLASS SIZE ............................................................................. 17
Issue ........................................................................................................................1..7.
Current Class S ize ....................................................................................................... 17
Optimum Class S ize ...................................................................................................1. 7
Per S tudent Cost of Reducing Class S ize from 25.5 to 20 .......................................1. 8
Capital Expenses ......................................................................................................... 18
PAYING STIPENDS TO QUALIFIED TEACHERS ......................................... 19
Issue .........................................................................................................................1..9
Stipends ..................................................................................................................1..9..
Per S tudent Cost of S tipends ........................................................................................ 20
TRAINING TEACHERS ................................................................................. 21
lss ue ........................................................................................................................2..1.
Per S tudent Cost for Training Teachers .......................................................................2. 2
HIRING TEACHER AIDES ........................................................................... 23
Issue .........................................................................................................................2..3
Per S tudent Cost for Hiring One Teacher Aide for E very 30 E nglis h Learners ................ 23
PROVIDING COMPENSATORY INSTRUCTION ........................................ 25
Issue ..........................................................................................................................2. 5
How Many E nglis h Learners Will Need Compensatory Instruction?. .............................2 5
Cost of Compensatory Instruction ..............................................................................2..7
Per Student Cost for Providing Compensatory Instruction to English Learners Who Are
Not P rogress ing .........................................................................................................2..7
BUYING INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES ........................... 29
Issue .........................................................................................................................2.9.
Per S tudent Cost for Additional Instructional Materials and Supplies Necessary for
English Learner Programs ..........................................................................................2..9
CONDUCTING LANGUAGE ASSESSMENTS ........................................ 31
Issue ........................................................................................................................3..1.
Cost of Test Materials. Scoring and Reporting ..............................................................3 1
Cost of Conducting Proficiency Tests ........................................................................... 31
Additiona I Language Assessment Costs ........................................................................ 32
Per S tudent Cost for Language Assessment ...................................................................3 2
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ........................................................................... 33
Issue ........................................................................................................................... 33
Per Student Cost of Administering Bilingual Education or Immersion Programs ............3 3
GRANT1 NG WAIVERS ................................................................................. 35
Issue ........................................................................................................................... 35
Administrative Costs of Waivers ................................................................................3..5
Per S tudent Cost of Granting Waivers .........................................................................3. 6
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ................................................................. 37
Issue ..........................................................................................................................3. 7
Per Student Cost of Miscellaneous Expenses ...............................................................3. 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................................................ 39
SOURCES ..................................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX ............................................................................................4. 5
J udge Marquez's Order for the Cost Study ...............................................................4..5
F lores vs . Arizona Consent Order ...........................................................................5..2
P ropos it ion 203 ...................................................................................................-.6 1
PURPOSE
This study is submitted in response to judge Alfredo Marquez's
October 12, 2000 order to prepare a cost study to establish the proper
appropriation to effectively implement the State's L au educational
theory in the Flores vs. Arizona case (CIV 92-596).
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
1974 The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Lau vs. Nichols that schools must
provide English learners with programs that will make them proficient in English so that
they can achieve the same academic standards as other students.
1988 An Arizona Department of Education (ADE) study determines that schools
spend an average of $424 to educate each English learner. The study admits that $424
does not represent the amount needed for a quality program, but is only what schools can
afford.
1989 The Legislature establishes a funding weight that provides only $50 per
English learner.
1991 The Legislature increases the English learner funding weight to $1 50.
1992 The Flores vs. Arizona lawsuit is filed in federal court claiming that
Arizona is failing to properly fund programs for English learners and that ADE is failing to
ensure that schools are providing adequate programs for these students.
Spring, 1999 SB 1001, a comprehensive bill which would have settled the Flores vs.
Arizona lawsuit, is gutted in the Senate, then defeated in the House of Representatives.
August, 1999 A three day trial of the Flores vs. Arizona lawsuit is held on the issue of
whether the state is properly funding English learner programs. The parties work on a
settlement agreement on the other issues.
January, 2000 Judge Marquez rules that Arizona's funding of programs for English
learners is inadequate and has resulted in not enough teachers, teachers' aides, classrooms,
materials and tutoring. The state does not appeal the decision and it becomes final.
Spring, 2000 SB 1242, which would have funded a cost study on programs for English
learners is defeated in the Senate. Several other amendments to provide funding for a cost
study are also defeated.
June, 2000 During the special session on school funding, the Governor and some
Republican legislators insist that funding for a cost study be removed from what would
become Proposition 301.
June, 2000 Judge Marquez signs a consent decree that contains most of the provisions
oi SB 1001 (1999). It requires the Board of Education to adopt regulations by the end of
the year regarding the quality of instruction for English learners, compensatory instruction
and monitoring by the Department of Education. The issue of the qualifications of teachers
of English learners will be decided at a trial in December.
July, 2000 Citing legislative inaction, the plaintiffs return to court, asking the judge to
order that a cost study be done.
Oct. 12, 2000 Judge Marquez orders the state to do a cost study to establish the proper
appropriation to effectively implement programs for English learners in time for legislators
to use in the upcoming budget session.
Nov. 7, 2000 Voters approve Proposition 203 which requires most English learners to
be taught through structured English immersion, unless their parents receive a bilingual
education waiver.
Nov. 29, 2000 The parties in the Flores vs. Arizona lawsuit agree that the trial on teacher
qualifications will be postponed and that the Board of Education will adopt rules regarding
the requirements for teachers under Proposition 203 by July, 2001.
Dec. 15, 2000 ADE finally issues a Request for a Proposal (RFP) for a cost study,
however, it contains deadlines that are nearly impossible to meet. For example, it asks the
contractor to: select schools offering specified immersion programs in Texas, Canada,
California, Washington, Phoenix and Glendale; determine what those schools are
spending on each component (e.g., teacher salaries, teacher training, compensatory
instruction, etc.) of their program; adjust those amounts to the Arizona cost-of-living dollars
and project them to the year 2002; individually itemize sources and amounts of funding
available for immersion programs for every charter school and school district in the state;
and issue a preliminary report in three weeks. 1
Dec. 31, 2000 The State Board of Education misses their agreed upon deadline to adopt
rules required by the Flores vs. Arizona consent agreement.
Jan. 3, 2001 No bidder responds to the Department of Education's RFP for a cost study
by the deadline.
Jan. 10, 2001 Seventeen Arizona legislators release a cost study showing that it will cost
the state a total of $1 91 million, or $1 527 per student, to provide English learners with the
type of program required under the judge's order and the Flores vs. Arizona consent
agreement.
FLORES VS. ARIZONA LAWSUIT
History of the Lawsuit
Issues in the Lawsuit
In 1992 the Flores vs. Arizona lawsuit was filed in federal court alleging that Arizona was
violating the civil rights of English learners by denying them the ability to participate
meaningfully in our educational system. Specifically, it charged that the Legislature failed
to adequately fund programs to educate English learners and that the Department of
Education (ADE) failed to ensure that schools were providing adequate programs.
The issue of the inadequacy of the programs offered to English learners was resolved by a
consent decree that required uniform standards for determining English proficiency,
curriculum for English learners that was comparable to that offered native English speakers,
compensatory instruction for English learners who were not progressing and regular
monitoring by the ADE. The issue of inadequate funding went to trial.
The judge's Decision on Funding
The issue of inadequate funding went to trial in August, 1999. On January 24, 2000 Judge
Alfredo Marquez ruled that Arizona was in violation of the federal Equal Educational
Opportunity Act because its funding for English learner programs was "arbitrary and
capricious". He said that inadequate state funding has resulted in the following
deficiencies: "1) too many students in a class room 2) not enough class rooms, 3) not
enough qualified teachers, including teachers to teach ESL and bilingual teachers to teach
content area studies, 4) not enough teacher aids, 5) an inadequate tutoring program, and 6)
insufficient teaching materials for both ESL classes and content area courses." His decision
was not appealed and is now final.
The ludee's Order for a Cost Studv
Although several attempts were made during the 2000 legislative session to secure
adequate funding for these programs, none were successful. After the legislature refused to
fund even a cost study, the plaintiffs asked Judge Marquez to order the state to conduct
one. ADE claimed that it would take $300,000 and two and a half years to complete such
a study.
On October 12, 2000 Judge Marquez called ADE's claims "brazen" and ordered the state
to "prepare a cost study to establish the proper appropriation to effectively implement the
State's Lau' educational theory." He also ordered "that the cost study shall be prepared in
a timely fashion so that the Arizona Legislature can appropriate funding for Lau programs
during the upcoming biannual budget session, beginning January, 2001 ."
Reason for This Cost Study
In the past few years, legislators began budget deliberations at the beginning of its session
in January. They try to adopt a budget by March 15. It is necessary, then, for the
Legislature to have a cost study at the beginning of the legislative session. This study
satisfies the judge's requirement that there be a cost study produced in a timely manner.
Provisions of the Flores vs. Arizona Consent Decree
The consent decree approved by Judge Alfredo Marquez in June, 2000 contained the
following provisions.
Standards for English Proficiency
Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to select a list of tests and corresponding
scores by July 1, 2000 to determine whether a child is proficient in English. The test scores
must be based on the vendor's cut scores for each test.
Status: Superintendent Keegan convened a committee of various educators to evaluate
tests. Although they made their recommendations by the July deadline, the final
determination of the selected tests was not issued until October, 2000. Schools still have
not been officially informed that the vendors' cut scores determine proficiency.
Monitoring: Exited Students
Requires the State Board of Education to issue regulations by December 31, 2000 that
require schools to monitor former English learners for two years after they have become
proficient enough to leave a Lau program. If a former English learner is not passing the
AIMS or other tests selected by the Superintendent, the student must be re-enrolled in a
bilingual or immersion class or be given compensatory instruction.
Status: The State Board of Education has not issued the regulations.
Quality of Programs
Requires the State Board of Education to issue regulations by December 31, 2000 that
require bilingual or immersion programs to:
*Provide daily instruction in both English language development and basic subject
areas.
Incorporate the State Board's academic standards
Be comparable in amount, scope and quality to educational programs provided to
English proficient students.
Status: The State Board of Education has not issued the regulations.
Compensatory Instruction
Requires the State Board of Education to issue regulations by December 31, 2000 that
would require schools to provide compensatory instruction to English learners who are not
improving their scores on either the Stanford 9 or the AIMS test. Compensatory instruction
can be in the form of individual or small group instruction, extended day classes, summer
school and intersession school.
Status: The State Board of Education has not issued the regulations.
Individual Education Programs
Requires the State Board of Education to issue regulations by December 31, 2000 that
establishes lndividual Education Plan (IEP) teams and IEP standards which schools may
provide to students when they have too few English learners at a grade level or when a
parent wishes their child to be removed from a bilingual education or immersion program.
Status: The State Board of Education has not issued the regulations, however, Proposition
203 eliminated the option for IEP's.
Monitoring for Compliance with State and Federal Laws
Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction beginning July 1, 2000 to monitor at least
32 school districts or charter schools each year to determine their compliance with state
and federal laws regarding services to English learners. School districts with large numbers
of English learners will be monitored every four years. Reports and corrective action plans
must be issued according to specified timelines.
Status: The Department of Education has begun monitoring school districts and charter
schools.
Impact of the Flores vs. Arizona Consent Decree on Program Costs
There are two areas where the consent decree will have a significant impact on costs:
instruction in content areas and compensatory instruction.
Instruction in Content Areas
Prior to the consent decree, schools were permitted to use pullout programs. These
programs pulled English learners out of their regular classroom for one period a day for
English instruction. The remainder of the day the student stayed in a mainstream classroom
without any assistance in understanding what was being taught. Pullout programs allowed
one teacher to provide instruction for the English learners in six different classrooms.
Studies have shown that pullout programs are the most expensive, because of the
additional teacher required.
Under the consent decree, pullout programs will no longer be allowed unless they are
supplemented by daily instruction in basic subject areas by a teacher trained in ESL (or
immersion) methods. Schools will have to hire many more teachers to meet this
requirement or help their regular classroom teachers get the required endorsement. These
costs are addressed under the sections entitled Paying Stipends to Qualified Teachers and
Training Teachers.
Compensatory Instruction
The consent decree requires that schools give compensatory instruction to both former
English learners who are not performing satisfactorily after leaving a bilingual or immersion
program, and to current English learners who do not show improvement on their Stanford 9
or AIMS scores. Examples of compensatory instruction are individual or small group
instruction, extended day classes, summer school and intersession school. These costs are
outlined in the section entitled Providing Compensatory Instruction.
Individual Education Programs (IEP's)
In addition, the consent decree strengthens the procedures for individual education
programs, which some schools have used when there were not enough students to make a
regular program feasible or when parent-s wanted their children removed from regular
programs. Proposition 203, however, eliminated the option of individual education
programs, therefore, these costs are not included in this study.
PROPOSITION 203
What Did Proposition 203 Do?
Programs
Prior to the passage of Proposition 203 schools had the choice of offering English as a
Second Language (ESL), three types of bilingual education, or Individual Education Plans
(IEP1s) to their English learners. Proposition 203 required structured English immersion to
be taught to all English learners who do not receive waivers. Immersion uses English almost
exclusively, however, it uses methods to make English language instruction and subject
matter understandable to an English learner. It is very similar to what is commonly referred
to as self-contained or content ESL.
Proposition 203 allows children with waivers to be educated through "bilingual education
techniques or other generally recognized educational methodologies permitted by law."
The proposition, however, also eliminated all the other program choices permitted by
Arizona law, with the exception of bilingual education. It is not clear whether schools
would be permitted to offer other programs that would be permitted under federal law.
Proposition 203 defined bilingual education programs as those in which "much or all
instruction, textbooks, or teaching materials are in the child's native language other than
English." Although there are no bilingual programs in Arizona which use the native
language exclusively, the definition in Proposition 203 is broad enough to encompass all of
the models allowed prior to its passage.
Proposition 203 eliminated the IEP option. This means that parents can no longer
withdraw their children from an immersion program until they are proficient and that
schools are required to provide an immersion program even if there are only a few students
in the school.
Waivers
, Proposit~on 203 allows children to receive bilingual education if their parents receive a
tvaiver for one of the following reasons:
1) The child already knows enough English to score above their peers on the Stanford
9 test or to pass an oral evaluation.
2 The child is at least 10 years of age and the principal and educational staff believes
that bilingual education would be better.
3 1 The principal and educational staff believe that a child has a physical or
psychological need that would make bilingual education preferable. This need must be
documented in a 250 word statement and approved by the school superintendent.
Lawsuits .
The parent of any school child can sue a school board member, elected official or
administrator (but not teachers) to enforce the provisions of the Proposition. They can be
awarded attorney's fees and actual and compensatory damages. Anyone who is
successfully sued is removed from office and cannot participate in the Arizona public
school system for at least five years. Administrators and board members cannot purchase
insurance to indemnify themselves from these lawsuits.
Testing
All students, including English learners, must be given the Stanford 9 test in grades 2
through 12. The test results of English learners shall be separately aggregated and made
available on the internet.
Repeal of Old Provisions
Proposition 203 repealed all the old statutory language regarding English learners including
several accountability measures such as parental notification of student's progress toward
English proficiency, an annual report to the Department of Education and financial
penalties for failing to comply with state law. Other repealed provisions such as
determining the home language of new students and the procedures for reclassifying
students are addressed by federal law.
What Didn't Proposition 203 Do?
It did not eliminate bilingual education for the 30% of English learners who are in
bilingual education programs. Their parents must get a waiver for them to continue
receiving bilingual education, but it is expected that the vast majority of them will apply for
one. In some cases, schools that have never offered bilingual education will be required to
do so.
It did not make any significant changes to the instruction for 70% of English
learners that were already in English as a Second Language programs. They will continue
to be instructed almost entirely in English.
It did not require English learners to be placed in a program of intensive English
instruction. The language of the Proposition and the consent decree make it clear that
academic subject matter must be taught in addition to English.
It did not require students to learn English in one year. Federal law requires
schools to provide students with language services for as long as it takes them to learn
English.
Will Proposition 203 Limit Funding for English Learners to One Year?
During the election, both proponents and opponents cited the one-year time limit on
services for English learners as a reason to vote for (or against) Proposition 203. Even the
state's fiscal analysis claimed in the publicity pamphlet that the state could save up to $20
million per year if the vast majority of English learners were exited from the programs after
one year. One legislator proposed using that "savings" for an adult literacy program. All of
those statements ignored federal civil rights law, which supersedes state law on this issue.
Proposition 203 states "Children who are English learners shall be educated through
sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to
exceed one year."(italics added) Similar language was in California's Proposition 227.
Prior to the passage of Proposition 227 in California, the federal Office of Civil Rights
addressed the question of the one-year limit in the following manner:
Question: Would a one year limit on services to LEP3 students be permissible
under federal law?
Answer: Lau requires that LEP students who need alternative language
instruction in order to receive meaningful access to the district's mainstream
educational program, be provided those services until an individualized
determination is made that a student no longer needs the services in order to
participate meaningfully in the District's educational program. Some
children may reach this level of English proficiency within one year.
However, children learn at different speeds, and districts cannot limit to one
year alternative services for LEP students who are not yet able to participate
meaningfully in the district's programs."
California has experienced an increase, not a decrease, in the total number of English
learners every year since Proposition 227 passed.' Last year only 7 to 8% of English
learners in California were reclassified as English proficient6, which means that over 90%
of English learners have been in immersion programs for longer than a year. This is not
surpr~sings ince the vast majority of research indicates that it takes considerably longer than
one year for a child to become proficient in English.
ARS 15-901, which was not affected by Proposition 203, allows Group B weight funding
ior English learners in a program, without regard for how long they have been in that
program. In summary, the phrase "not normally intended to exceed one year" may be a
goal or a suggestion, but it will not significantly affect the amount of funding needed for
English learners.
Impact of Proposition 203 on Program Costs
Not only does Proposition 203 not save the state any money, in several ways it will make
providing services to E nglis h learners more expensive.
Schools Must Offer Both Immersion and Bilingual Education, In Some Cases
Prior to the passage of Proposition 203, schools had the option of whether to offer bilingual
education or English as a Second Language or both. Proposition 203 requires schools in
which 20 students or more receive a bilingual education waiver to provide bilingual
education. If there are less than 20 students with a waiver, the school must either provide
them with bilingual education or transport them to another school that does. This situation
will create additiona I costs for administration and transportation.
Class Sizes Likelv Will Be Reduced
Class sizes for English learners will likely be smaller not only because of the bilingual
education waivers, but because Proposition 203 repealed options for individual education
programs when there were only a few English learners in a grade. (See discussion under
Reducing Class S ize.)
There Will Likely be an Increase in Compensatory Instruction
The Flores a. Arizona consent agreement requires schools to provide compensatory
instruction to English learners who do not improve their Stanford 9 test scores.
Proposition 203 does two things that will increase the number of students eligible for
compensatory instruction:
It requires all students in grades 2 through 12 to take the Stanford 9 test. Previously
English learners could be exempted from the Stanford 9 for up to three years. if more
English learners are given the Stanford 9 test when they have had minimal or no
instruction in English, more will fail to improve their test scores.
According to the last three yean ofADEfs Census reports, English learners in bilingual
education classes have outperformed E nglis h learners in all-E nglis h cla~ses.~T o the
extent that Proposition 203 succeeds in reducing the number of students in bilingual
education classes, there will be more E nglis h learners with lower Stanford 9 test scores.
Group B Weight Funding
Proposition 203 repeak the authority of the S uperintendent of Public Instruction to limit
Group B weight funding for students in programs with a bilingual education or ESL
endorsement. Instead, all English learners in programs will be eligible for funding. This
may result in additional funding for as many as 16,000 English learner^.^
Administrative Costs for Waivers
Approximately 30% of students are now in bilingual programs. It is expected that the vast
majority of parents will apply for a waiver to keep their children in those programs.
Granting waivers entails such expenses as meeting with the parent at the school,
documenting ind ividua I psychologica 1 or phys ica I needs, getting s ignatures from principa Is
and superintendents, etc. This is discussed further in the section entitled Granting Waivers.
METHODOLOGY
1988 Cost Study
In 1988 the Arizona Department of Education conducted a cost study on programs for
English learners, using a methodology similar to their biannual assessment of special
education costs. The 1988 study examined sample school districts to determine what they
were actually spending in the areas of administration, instruction, instructional support,
operations and capital outlay. The study concluded that schools were spending
approximately $424 per English learner. ' If that amount were adjusted for inflation to the
year 2000, it would be approximately $624 per student.''
Judge Marquez noted that the cost study was not reflective of the actual cost of operating
successful programs for several reasons, including that "there was no assessment made
between the cost of a program and the quality of the program, and . . .certain conditions
were not considered that may contribute additional significant costs." The study, itself,
acknowledged its shortcomings:
"It should be noted that the costs represented herein probably do not
represent all the additional costs essential to providing a quality (emphasis
added) LEP program, but rather they represent the costs from limited
resources allocated by the district for the LEP programs." "
In conclusion, even if that study were updated to the year 2000, it would not satisfy the
judge's ruling in the Flores vs. Arizona lawsuit. If schools are not spending enough money,
determining how much they spend will not help to ascertain what an adequate amount is.
Methodology of this Study
This study used a different approach. It enumerates the important components of an
effective program for English learners, such as reduced class size, specially trained teachers
and language assessments. Special emphasis was placed on the deficiencies that were
outlined in judge Marquez's decision. A cost was determined for each component, which
were then added together for a final cost. In all cases, the extra costs are for items that are
required for programs for English learners that would not have been incurred in a
classroom of English proficient students.
The 1988 Cost Study showed that self-contained ESL programs were more expensive than
selt-contained bilingual programs ($473 to $504 vs. $239 to $359). In another study,
Thomas Parrish found that self-contained bilingual programs were more cost effective than
either sheltered English or ESL programs by a margin of nearly 20 percent.'* This study,
however, does not distinguish between the costs of bilingual and immersion programs. The
individual components of a quality program, such as reduced class size and adequate
materials, are the same regardless of the particular instruction method used.
REDUCING CLASS SIZE
Issue
There are numerous studies which indicate that smaller class sizes are beneficial for all
students. This is particularly true of students who have trouble with understanding the
language in which they are being taught. Judge Marquez found in Nogales Unified School
District that "the typical total enrollment in a primary classroom to which LEP students are
assigned ranges from 20 students, which is good, to 30 students in a classroom" and that
the state's inadequate funding has lead to "too many students in a classroom" and "not
enough classrooms".
Current Class Size
One method for determining class size is to divide the number of students by the number
of teachers. That method, however, fails to take into account a number of "teachers" who
perform administrative functions or are otherwise not in the classroom.
In 1998 the Arizona Education Association used a more accurate method - they sampled
several school districts from throughout the state and counted the number of students that
were in the classroom. Their study concluded that the average class size in Arizona is
25.5. '-'
That estimate may be low, however. Education Week's "Quality Counts" uses 1996 data
to conclude that only 45% of Arizona's fourth graders are in classes of 25 or fewer and that
only 35% of 8th graders are in math classes of 25 or fewer. l4
This study uses the Arizona Education Association's estimate of 25.5 for current average
class size.
Optimum Class Size
Although most studies conclude that student achievement improves with reduced class
sizes, there are very few studies which determine the optimum class size for English
learners.
Rosi ta Apodaca studied a successful high-intensity language training program in El Paso
Independent School District in which the class sizes were 8-1 2 in beginning courses, 15-20
in intermediate courses and the regular class size in advanced courses.15 "Characteristics of
Effective Secondary Vocational Education Programs for Special population^"'^ by Marie
Parks concluded that a class size ranging from 11-1 5 students was an important element of
a successful program. The class sizes recommended by those studies are simply too
impractical and expensive. This study assumes that the optimum ideal class size for
instruction of English learners is 20.
In some circumstances, Proposition 203 will force even a lower class size for English
learners. Prior to the passage of 203, schools were not required to offer a formal ESL or
bilingual program to students unless there were ar least 10 English learners per grade level,
per school. In those cases, children may have been in a mainstream program, but were
provided additional services under an Individual Education Program (IEP). Proposition 203
eliminated the IEP option. Therefore, a school district is required to provide a structured
English immersion or bilingual program, even if there is only a single English learner
attending the school.
Per Student Cost of Reducing Class Size from 25.5 to 20
Average Teacher Salary" $34,873
Average Teacher Benefits l8 + 5,475
Total Teacher Cost $40,348
Divided by Average # of Students + 25.5
Per Student Allocation of
Salary and Benefits $ 1,582
Per Classroom Cost of Reducing
From 25.5 to 20 (5.5 X $1 582) $ 8,701
Divided by New Classroom Size + 20
Per Student Cost for
Reducing Classroom Size
Capital Expenses
Under Students FIRST, the state has assumed the responsibility for constructing classrooms.
It would not, therefore, be appropriate to allocate in the Group B weight capital funding for
what IS now a state responsibility. In order to make it possible for schools to reduce
Engl~shle arner class sizes to 20, they must have adequate classroom space. Therefore, the
School Facil~t~eBso ard must be directed to assume that there will be only 20 English
learner; per classroom when they determine if there is a square footage deficiency or if
new construct~onis warranted.
PAYING STIPENDS TO QUALIFIED TEACHERS
Issue,
The most important requirement for the success of a bilingual or immersion program, as in
any educational program, is a qualified teacher. Arizona requires teachers to have either
an ESL or bilingual education endorsement on their teaching certificate in order to teach in
one of those programs. The endorsements both require 21 semester hours in specified
college classes. In order to get a bilingual education endorsement, a teacher must also
demonstrate proficiency in another language.lg The requirements for an ESL endorsement
are being reviewed in light of Proposition 203's requirement for immersion programs,
however, they are likely to be similar.
Judge Marquez's decision noted that Nogales Unified needed at least 160 more elementary
and middle school teachers with an endorsement, plus additional high school teachers.
Nogales is not alone. A recent study by the ADE concluded that 37% of the teachers
providing bilingual or immersion instruction to English learners did not have the necessary
endorsement. Another 15% had only a provisional endorsement and were in the process
of taking the necessary classes. In other words, less than half of Arizona's English learners
are being taught by fully qualified teachew20
This problem could worsen with the passage of Proposition 203. A recent study sponsored
by the University of California Linguistic Minority Research CenteP' found that 113 of the
certified bilingual teachers who were teaching in bilingual classrooms prior to the passage
of Proposition 227 were no longer doing so. Equally disturbing was the reduction of
teachers who were studying for their bilingual credential; in the year following the passage
of Proposition 227, the number dr0pped.b~h alf.
Stipends
One method that schools have been using to encourage teachers to get the necessary
training is offering stipends to teachers who have an ESL or bilingual endorsement. Judge
Marquez noted that Nogales Unified paid a $2,000 stipend per year for language endorsed
teachers. A survey of 50 schools presented to the English as Second Language and
Bilingual Education Study Committee in 1999 showed that half of the districts paid stipends
ranging from $400 to $2500 annually.2-'
Because the shortage of teachers is so severe, it is estimated that in order to recruit and
retain teachers with an ESL (immersion) or bilingual education endorsement, schools must
provide at least a $2,000 per year stipend.
Per Student Cost of Stipends
Stipend Amount
Class Size
Per Student Cost
For Stipends
TRAINING TEACHERS
Issue
Another method for increasing the supply of endorsed teachers is to provide the training
necessary for the endorsement. The federal Office of Civil Rights says "If a recipient
(school) has shown that it has unsuccessfully tried to hire qualified teachers, it must provide
adequate training to teachers already on staff. Such training must take place as soon as
possible. " 23
Judge Marquez noted in his decision that as part of an OCR agreement, Nogales Unified
School District had required new teachers to get a bilingual or ESL endorsement within
three years, but discontinued the rule when it became too burdensome. He also noted that
Nogales Unified arranged with Northern Arizona University to offer the courses required
for endorsement and contracted with California State Fullerton to provide additional
training for its teachers, even though that program does not lead to an endorsement. Judge
Marquez also noted that if NUSD had the money to upgrade its Lau programs, it would be
able to cover the cost for its teachers to acquire the necessary endorsements.
Some schools have been able to afford to provide the necessary training. The survey
mentioned above found that of the 50 schools surveyed, 26 reimbursed tuition costs and/or
held onsite classes for teachers to get their ESL or bilingual endorsement. 24
The necessity for teacher training will increase as the number of English learners entering
our schools increases.
Total English ~earners~' Increase From Previous Year
At a standard class size of 20 students, last year's increase alone in the number of English
learners would require an additional 1400 teachers with an endorsement.
Per Student Cost for Training Teachers
Because half of English learners are currently without an endorsed teacher, it is assumed
that at any given time half of all Lau program teachers are (or should be) taking courses
necessary for an endorsement. Although, over time, the number of endorsed teachers
should grow, it is assumed that for the next several years, at least 50% of teachers of
English learners will be seeking endorsement due to expected continued growth in the
English learner population.
Cost of a College Course
on Bilingual or ESL Methods $400
Per Class Cost of Books and
Materials + $ 50
Total Cost Per Class $450
N umber of Classes a Teacher
Will Take Each Year X 2
Total Annual Cost of Teacher
Training
Times Percentage of Teachers
That Need Training X 50%
Annual Classroom Cost for Teacher
Training $450
Number of Students in a Classroom + 20
Per Student Cost for
Teacher Training
HIRING TEACHER AIDES
Issue
Schools use teacher aides to help in the instruction of English learners. Teacher aides may
assist by reinforcing vocabulary and pronunciation skills, translating tests, meeting with
nonxnglish speaking parents, providing individual or small group tutoring, etc. According
to a survey presented to the English as Second Language and Bilingual Education Study
Committee, almost 85% of schools with a significant English learner population hired
teacher aides to assist in bilingual or ESL education. There was an average of one aide for
every 60 English learners.26
Judge Marquez noted in his decision that Arizona's inadequate level of funding resulted in
a shortage of teacher aides. One aide for 60 students would mean that a single aide
would split time between three classrooms. This study assumes that there should be a
minimum of one aide for every 30 English learners.
Per Student Cost for Hiring One Teacher Aide for Every 30 English Learners
Hourly wage for teacher aides $ 7.4527
Times annual hours for teacher aides X 10502'
Annual wage for a teacher aides $7, 822
Estimated benefits 29 + 1,228
Total Cost of Each Teacher Aide $9,O5O3O
English Learners Per Aide
Per Student Cost for
Teacher Aides
PROVIDING COMPENSATORY INSTRUCTION
Issue
The Flores vs. Arizona consent decree requires schools to provide compensatory
instruction whenever an English learner is not making progress towards state standards as
evidenced by his or her failure to improve scores on either the AlMS test or the Stanford 9
test. Examples of compensatory instruction, as outlined in the consent decree, are
individual or small group instruction, extended day classes, summer school and
intersession school. Because this is a district obligation, English learners cannot be
required to pay for the cost of compensatory instruction.
Additionally, Judge Marquez noted that if Nogales Unified School District had additional
revenues it would pay teachers to tutor students after school and hire outside instructors to
tutor students. He concluded that the State's inadequate funding has resulted in an
"inadequate tutoring program".
How Many English Learners Will Need Compensatory Instruction?
Elementary English Learners
The AlMS test is given in the third, fifth and eighth grades. It will not be known if a child
improves his scores on the second (fifth grade) test until he is in the sixth grade. Therefore,
no English learners will be eligible for compensatory instruction because of failure to
improve AlMS scores until the sixth grade.
The passage of Proposition 203 requires the Stanford 9 test to be given in grades 2 through
12. If an English learner first takes the test in second grade, he or she cannot have a chance
to improve their test scores until the third grade. The results of the Stanford 9, however,
would not be known until the child is in the fourth grade. For the purposes of this
estimate, it is assumed that there will not be data available to determine if a child is making
academic progress until the fourth grade, therefore compensatory instruction wi l I not be
required in kindergarten through third grades.
According to ADE 40-50% of a / / elementary students do not show improvement on
Stanford 9 scores from one year to the next. English learners will have more difficulty
showing improvement than the general population because the test is given in a language
that they do not understand. It is estimated that 75% of all elementary English learners will
not show improvement on their Stanford 9 scores from one year to the next.
High School English Learners
The number of high school students who have failed the AlMS test has been the source of
substantial public debate. The numbers look even worse when they are sorted by ethnic
group. For example, over 97% of Native American and 94.5% of Hispanic eight graders
failed the math portion of the test. Over 92% of Native American and 89% of Hispanic
eleventh graders failed the writing portion of the r e t e ~ t . ~ ' Given that the majority of
students in both the Hispanic and Native American categories are proficient in English, it is
doubtful whether students who are not proficient in English are prepared to pass the AlMS
test. This study assumes that 100% of the English learners in high school will require
compensatory instruction.
Based on the percentage of English learners in each grade and the assumptions of what
percentage in each grade will not show academic improvement, it is estimated that overall
41 '10 of English learners will require compensatory instruction.
Grade
1
1 TOTAL
O/O of all
English
~earners~'
1 OO.OO/O
Est. O/O Not
Improving Test
Scores
41.2%
Overall
O/O
Cost of Compensatory lnstruction
Compensatory instruction is expensive. In the Flores vs. Arizona trial, Dr. Gene Glass of
Arizona State University testified that the most effective form of compensatory instruction
was tutoring. According to Dr. Glass, the cost for 30 minutes a day of tutoring by an adult
is $820 in 1987 dollars.33 That amount would be $1,257 in 2000 dollars, adjusted by the
CP1.34 Some schools have turned to private companies to provide this type of instruction.
For example, in 1993 Sylvan Learning Systems, a private tutoring company, contracted
with Baltimore Public Schools to provide one-hour tutorials twice a week with no more
than three students per teacher.35 Their contract for $1.4 M served 660 students, for a per
student cost of $2121 or $2555 in 2000 dollars.36
This study assumes that the average cost for compensatory instruction is $1200.
Per Student Cost for Providing Compensatory lnstruction to English Learners
Who Are Not Progressing
Average Cost for Compensatory lnstruction
Percentage of Students Needing
Compensatory lnstruction
Per Student Cost for
Compensatory Instruction
BUYING l NSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
Issue
In order to carry out an effective bilingual education or immersion program, it is necessary
to have adequate instructional materials. According to the Office of Civil Rights:
Materials need to be appropriate to the student's age or grade level . . . If the
district has chosen a bilingual program model, the District should acquire
appropriate materials in both instructional languages. If the district has
chosen an ESL program model, the District should acquire materials
appropriate to ESL instruction. Acquiring appropriate materials may include
the need to update reference documents such as library materials. Merely
providing LU> students with the same materials that are provided to their
English proficient peers does not constitute providing those students with
equal access to the District's educational program." 37
Judge Marquez noted that Nogales Unified School District needed materials for both
language groups. He further noted that NUSD needed "EEL materials, esoecially to teach
language skills in content areas, such as English, social studies, science and math." He
concluded that the inadequate funding has led to "insufficient teaching materials for both
ESL classes and content area courses."
Per Student Cost for Additional Instructional Materials and Supplies
Necessary for English Learner Programs
A 1987-88 study of Hartford Public Schools found that there was $63,746 for instructional
supplies for bilingual education services to 5,700 English learners38,w hich averages out to
$1 1 .I8 per student. If that amount is inflated to 2000 dollars, using the federal CPI, it
would be $16.45 per student.39 However, the authors of the study underestimated the
costs of materials because they did not count any materials that were in English and they
counted only half the cost of materials that were in the students native language.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, schools in Arizona spend
approx-~mately$ 52 per student in instructional supplies for all students, including English
learners. 40 It is assumed that schools will need 50% more instructional materials than the
average for all students.
Per Student Cost for
Materials and Supplies
CONDUCTING LANGUAGE ASSESSMENTS
issue
Schools are required to do regular testing to determine a child's proficiency in English. If a
new student's home language is not English, the child is given a proficiency test to
determine whether or not he or she is proficient in English. Those who are classified as
English learners are tested annually to determine whether they are proficient enough in
English to be placed in a mainstream classroom. English learners who are mainstreamed
are tested for the next two years to ensure that they continue to make academic progress.
Assessment costs include the test instrument, capital equipment, such as a tape recorder,
and the costs of labor for administering and scoring the test, and entering results into a
central computer system. There are also costs for administering a testing program and for
conducting further assessments of students who pass the formal proficiency tests.
Cost of Test Materials, Scoring and Reporting
Using data provided by the Tucson Unified School District, the following are estimates for
costs of test materials, scoring and reporting:
/ TOTAL 1
Grade
Cost of Conducting Proficiency Tests
According to TUSD, the average number of minutes for conducting the tests are as follows:
Oral Testing
Cost
O/O of all Eng-lish
~earners"
Reading and Total
Writing Test Cost / Test Cost
I Grade 1 Oral
I Testing
7-12 1 37 I TOTAL 1
Weighted
Test Cost
Reading and 1 Total
Writing Test Test Time
I Time (min.) Time
8 I 45
i
O/O of all Eng-lish
Learners4'
Weighted
Test Time
(Minutes)
2 5.7 O/0
1 oo.oO/~
11.6
38.7
Assuming an average of $13.25 an hour for wages and benefits for a testing technician, the
costs for conducting the tests would average $8.55. This estimate is for a district with a
large number of English learners, therefore they are able to benefit from economies of scale
by allowing several students to take the reading and writing test at the same time.
Adjusting for that, it is assumed that the cost for an average school district is $1 0.
Additional Language Assessment Cosls
There are additional costs associated with language proficiency testing. For example,
schools are required to test all students whose home language is not English, only a portion
of which are classified as English learners. For English learners who score high enough on
proficiency tests, other assessments must take place before they can be mainstreamed.
Although Proposition 203 eliminated the specific requirements for mainstreaming students,
it is likely that schools will continue to use a comprehensive approach that considers, for
example the teacher's opinion and the parents' wishes, in addition to the test scores. Other
costs include are transportation of testing technicians to school sites, capital equipment
such as tape recorders and computer terminals for test score entry, and maintaining a data
base on student's test scores. In addition there are the administrative expenses in arranging
and tracking the tests. It is assumed that all these items will cost an additional $10 per
student.
Per Student Cost for Language Assessment
Cost of Test Materials, Scoring and Reporting
Cost of Conducting Proficiency Tests
Add it ional Language Assessment Costs
Per Student Cost for Language Assessment
By comparison, a study by Chambers and Parrish in 1992 of selected California schools
found that assessment costsaveraged $3643, which would be $4544 in 2000 dollars.
ADMl N ISTRATIVE COSTS
Issue
Administrative costs include the cost of a bilingual education director, his or her staff and
their related costs. The responsibilities of administrative staff may include: ensuring that all
students are tested for English proficiency; assisting in the design of curriculum and the
selection of textbooks for English learner programs; administering federal grants; recruiting
endorsed teachers; providing in-service training on English learner issues; preparing the
annual language assessment report for the Department of Education; conducting a self-assessment
of bilingual education or immersion programs; and ensuring that the district
complies with state and federal laws.
Per Student Cost of Administering Bilingual Education or Immersion
Programs
The 1988 Cost Study estimated that administrative costs comprised $30 per student or
7.1 O/O of the total student cost of $424. In 2000 dollars that amount would equate to
$44 per ~tudent.~H' owever, this amount is probably low because the authors arbitrarily
decided not to count any costs that comprised less than 25"/0 of a person's salary. 46 Also,
Judge Marquez noted in his decision that one of the problems in the report was the
different ways in which schools categorized program costs and that teachers performing
administrative tasks could have been categorized as teachers instead of administrators.
Nogales Unified School District reported that administrative costs for their bilingual1ESL
programs totaled $297,960 for 4,843 English learners, at an average of $62 per ~tudent.~'
This included costs for the Bilingual Education Administrator's salary and benefits, bilingual
consultants, translating equipment and other translating costs, the Into English Program and
the ESL Laboratory.
Nogales' administrative expenses may be lower than other districts because they have an
extraordinarily high concentration of English learners (79% of their 99-00 ADM) and are
thus able to benefit from economies of scale. Also, 95% of their English learners come
from Mexico and are therefore primarily speakers of Spanish. By contrast, some schools
have students speaking numerous languages. There are 43 different languages reported on
the ADE's Arizona Language Census and Program report.48 These schools have much
higher translation costs.
A 1992 study contracted by the California State Department of Education of 15
"exenlplary" California schools showed that administrative costs, which had a similar
definition to those used in the 1988 Cost Study and the Nogales Unified School District,
ranged from $44 to $1 324? In 2000 dollars, that range would be $55 to $1 64
Based on this information, this study assumes that administrative costs equal $75 per
student. ~heseco sts do not include the new costs to administer waiver requests, which are
addressed below.
Per Student Cost for
Administrative Cosls
GRANTING WAIVERS
Issue
Proposition 203 imposed an involved process for granting waivers for parents who wanted
their children to be in a bilingual education or other program, other than immersion.
Currently 30% of English learners are in bilingual education programs." Because these
programs have been voluntary on the part of both the school and the parents, it is expected
that a large number of waivers will be requested and processed. It is estimated that on
average, 25% of parents of English learners will request waivers.
Administrative Costs of Waivers
Proposition 203 will require that the following steps be taken every year for each waiver:
I
i 1 / Arrange for ~arentsto visit the school 1 15 1
I #
1 2 / Provide parents with a full description of educational materials to I 45 1
1 1 be used and the different educational choices. Determine which 1 1
Steps
1 waiver the parent will apply for. 1
Estimated Staff
Time (min.)
I / or conduct an oral evaluation 1 30 1
I 3A
! I waiver would be better I 30 1
If waiver is based on already knowing English. . . .
Verify that Stanford 9 test scores are at the level specified in law
1 38
I I
15
If waiver is based on age. . .
Verify that the principal and other educational staff agree that a
3C If waiver is based on physical or psychological need . . .
I
1 Write a 250 word statement documenting the special needs Ver~fy that the principal and other educational staff agree that a
I waiver would be better
6 0
30
I Obta~no riginal signatures of principal and the superintendent 15
I 1 Enter the statement on the student's official school record
Depending on the waiver option chosen, it will take from 85 to 190 minutes, to complete
each waiver. At a rate of $25 per hour for staff time, waivers will cost from $35 to $79
aptece. Because the experience in California has shown that the third (most expensive)
option is the one most likely to be used, it is assumed that each waiver will cost an average
of $60.
15 I
4 i Documenting, recording and filing the waiver.
4
10
Per Student Cost of Granting Waivers
Average cost of granting a waiver
Estimated percent of parents who will
request waivers X 25%
Per Student Cost of Granting Waivers
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
Issue
There are several other expenses which have thus far not been addressed in this study.
They include:
Transportation Expenses
Some school districts transport English learners to specific schools that offer bilingual
education or immersion instruction. These costs are likely to increase under Proposition
203, because the individual education plan option has been eliminated. There is also the
expense of bilingual/immersion staff traveling from one school to another.
Recruitment Ex~enses
Because of the severe shortage of teachers with a bilingual or immersion endorsement,
schools have to spend a lot of money on recruitment costs. For example, some schools are
even recruiting for teachers from Spain and Mexico. Last year Nogales Unified School
District spent $25,000 on recruitment costs, which amounted to $5 per English learner.
Library Books and Endorsed Librarians
Schools with bilingual programs in which the goal is proficiency in English and one other
language need library books and other materials in that language. Schools with immersion
programs also need library materials geared to students who are learning English.
lnservice Training and Staff Development
In addition to the college credits needed to get a bilingual education or immersion
endorsement, teachers and other school personnel must receive regular training on English
learner issues. Last year, Nogales Unified School District spent $19,575~o~n this type of
training, which equaled about $4 per English learner.
Professional and Technical Services
Schools often hire outside personnel to do the following: enter data on English learners;
develop software specifically for use in bilingual education or immersion classrooms;
develop software to support testing, tracking and monitoring English learners.
Maintenance and Utilities Needed for Additional Classrooms
Although the additional classroom space needed for English learners should be provided
through the School Facilities Board, the school must supply utilities, clean and maintain the
extra space needed.
Per Student Cost of Miscellaneous Expenses
It is estimated that the per student amount for all of these expenses equals $25.
Per Student Cost for
Miscellaneous Expenses
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Arizona has been neglecting the education of English learners for more than a decade.
In 1989 when the Legislature first adopted a special funding weight for English learners, it
appropriated only $50, less than a twelfth of what a cost study showed that schools were
actually spending. Since then the weight has increased to $1 50, however, it is still a small
fraction of what is required.
There are three events that happened last year that will cause major changes to English
learner programs and affect their costs.
1 ) In November, 2000 voters approved Proposition 203 which established structured
English immersion as the default program for English learners. Parents who want their
children to participate in bilingual education will have to get a waiver. Currently, 3O0/0 of
English learners are in bilingual programs.
Proposition 203 will likely result in more English learners becoming eligible for Group B
funding. It will also add costs for granting waivers, reducing class sizes and providing
compensatory instruction.
2 Judge Marquez approved a consent agreement in the Flores vs. Arizona. The
agreement required establishing statewide standards for determining English proficiency,
monitoring former English learners, providing curriculum that is comparable in amount,
scope and quality to that provided to English proficient students, giving compensatory
instruction to English learners who are not progressing and monitoring by the Department
ot Education.
The consent agreement will require schools to provide more content instruction, instead of
just English instruction. This will require an increase in trained teachers. It also requires
that schools provide compensatory instruction, which can be very expensive, to students
ivho do not improve their AIMS or Stanford 9 scores.
3 In January, 2000 Judge Marquez ruled in Flores vs. Arizona that Arizona was
inadequately funding English learner programs and as a result there were "1) too many
students in a class room, 2) not enough class rooms, 3) not enough qualified teachers . . .4)
not enough teacher aids, 5) an inadequate tutoring program, and 6) insufficient teaching
materials . . ." In October, 2000 he ordered the state to conduct a cost study to "establish
the proper appropriation to effectively implement the State's programs for English learners.
The judge's ruling forces Arizona to provide funding for the deficiencies that he pointed
out.
This study calculates the costs to implement Proposition 203, to abide by the consent
agreement and to correct the deficiencies noted by Judge Marquez. It shows that the actual
cost of providing services to English learners is $1 527, ten times what the Legislature has
previously allocated.
PER STUDENT COST OF -
Reducing Class Size From 25.5 to 20 $ 435
Paying Stipends to Qualified Teachers $ 100
Providing Training to the 50% of Teachers
Who Do Not Have the Required Endorsement $ 23
Hiring One Teacher Aide for Every 30
English Learners $ 302
Providing Compensatory Instruction for English
Learners Who Are Not Progressing $ 494
Purchasing Instructional Materials and Supplies $ 26
Testing for Language Proficiency $ 32
Administering Bilingual Education and Immersion
Programs $ 75
Granting Waivers $ 15
M iscel laneous Expenses $-23
TOTAL $1 527
Although $1 527 seems high compared to what has been previously appropriated, it is right
in line with what other studies suggest is an adequate amount. For example, separate
studies by the Intercultural Development Research Association, a pioneer in the
development of models for determining the costs of implementing bilingual education or
ESL models, found in Texas, Colorado and Utah concluded that add-on costs for these
programs equaled 33% of the basic cost of providing an education program.53 If that
weight is multiplied by Arizona's average per student M&O expenditure of $4,75454, it
equals $1 568.
Arizona must properly fund English learner programs not only to avoid federal sanctions,
but also because we must provide immigrant and Native American children who are not
yet proficient in English an equal opportunity for academic success.
SOURCES
1 State of Arizona, Department of Education, Request for Proposal ED01-0029.
2 "tau", which comes from the Lau vs. Nichols case, is often used to refer to
programs for English learners.
3 "LEP" stands for Limited English Proficient and has the same meaning as English
learner.
4 "Questions That May Be Raised By Proposition 227", U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Civil Rights, June, 1998.
J California Department of Education website on English Learners at California
Public School at http://data1 .cde.ca.gov/dataquest~ASPGraph2.asp?Level= State
(> California Department of Education website on English Learners at
http://data1 .cde.ca.govldataquest/Cbeds1 .asp?EnrolI = on&PctEL = on&PctFEP = on&PctRe =
on&cChoice = StatProfl &cYear = 1999-00
7 English Acquisition Services: A Summary of Bilingual and English as a Second
Language Programs, Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1998-99, 1997-98
and 1996-97.
8 The Department of Education apportionment files for 1998-99 show that there
were 11 6,800 LEP students which received Group B funding. The ALCAP report for that
same year, however, reports that there were 132,800 students in programs.
9 Limited English Proficient (LEP) cost Study, Fiscal Year 1987-88, Arizona
Department of Education, page 8.
1 1 ' Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics at http://stats.bls.gov/ - inflation calculator.
1 1 Limited English Proficient (LEP) cost Study, Fiscal Year 1987-88, Arizona
Department of Education, page 8.
I . "Review of the Research on Instruction of Limited English Proficient Students" UC
L~nguisticM inority Research Institute Education Policy Center, UC Davis, 1997.
I i Class Size Counts for Quality; The AEA Class Size Study, Arizona Education
Association, February 1998
I 4 Education Week's Quality Counts 1999 at the following website:
www.edweek.org/sreports/qc99/states/grades/az-t. htm#cl imate
15 Apodaca,
The High Intensity
Convention of the
Rosita "How We Educate Non-English Speaking Students Successfully7.
Language Training Program Description, Paper Presented at the Annual
National School Boards' Association (Anaheim, CA, March 31, 1985)
16 Parks, Marie A., "Characteristics of Effective Secondary Vocational Education
Programs for Special Populations," 1 987.
17 1997-98 data from the Digest of Education Statistics 1999 at
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest99/d99tO79.html updated to the 1999-2000 school year
by increasing it each year by 1.4O10.
18 According to Public Elementary and Secondary School Revenues and Current
Expenditures, by State, Fiscal Year 1997, National Center for Education Statistics,
employees benefits in Arizona averaged 15.7% of instructional employees salaries.
19 Arizona Administrative Code.R7-2-613
20 English Acquisition Services: A Summary of Bilingual and English as a Second
Language Programs, Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1998-99, page 29.
2 1 Gandara, P., Maxwell-jolly, J., Garcia E., Asato, J., Gutierrez, K., Stritkus, T and
Curry, J. (2000) "The Initial Impact of Proposition 227 on the Instruction of English
Learners." Davis, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Center.
2 2 Arizona Legislature English as a second Language and Bilingual Education Study
Committee, Final Report, December 1, 1 999.
2 1 Consolidated Guide to the Provision of Equal Educational Opportunities for LEP
Students, U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, April, 1996, page 16.
2 4 Arizona Legislature English as a Second Language and Bilingual Education Study
Committee, Final Report, December 1, 1999.
? 7 English Acquisition Services: A Summary of Bilingual Programs and English as a
Second Language Programs, Arizona Department of Education, 1996-97, 1997-98 and
1998-99.
26 Arizona Legislature English as a Second Language and Bilingual Education Study
Committee, Final Report, December 1, 1999.
-1,- 1998 Arizona Employer Wage Survey, Arizona Department of Economic Security,
Labor Market Information.
28 Assumes teachers' aides work 6 hours a day for a 175 day school year.
29 According to Public E1ementa.r~ and Secondary School Revenues and Current
Expenditures, by State, Fiscal Year 1 997, National Center for Education Statistics,
employees benefits in Arizona averaged 15.7°/0 of instructional employees salaries.
30 This amount is much less than the average teacher aide salary and benefits ($9,809),
reported in a response by Ana Doan, Director of Bilingual Education and Curriculum for
Nogales Unified School District, to a survey submitted to her by Senator Joe Eddie Lopez,
June, 2000.
3 1 Arizona Department of Education AIMS data by ethnicity at the following website:
www.ade.state.az.us/standards/AIMS/downloads/aimsrace2000final.pdf
32 Printout Entitled Arizona Department of Education Language Census and Program
Report - ARS 15-75 1-756, State Totals, January 30, 1998.
33 Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (Non-Lau
Claims), Flores vs. Arizona, No. CIV 92-596 TUC ACM, page 15.
34 Consumer Price lndex for Urban Consumers, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics at http://stats.bls.gov/ - inflation calculator.
3 5 Beales, Janet R. and OILeary, John "Making Schools Work: Contracting Options for
Better Management, Reason Public Pol icy Institute, November, 1993.
3 6 Consumer Price lndex for Urban Consumers, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics at http://stats.bls.gov/ - inflation calculator.
3 7 Consolidated Guide to the Provision of Equal Educational Opportunities for LEP
Students, U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, April, 1996, page 20.
3lI Prince, Cynthia D. and Hubert, John A., "Measuring the Cost of Bilingual
Education," The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, Spring, 1994.
39 Consumer Price lndex for Urban Consumers, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics at http://stats.bls.gov/ - inflation calculator.
41' Public Elementary and 'Secondary School Revenues and Current Expenditures , by
State, Fiscal Year 1997, National Center for Education Statistics
J 1 Printout Entitled Arizona Department of Education Language Census and Program
Report - ARS 1 5-75 1-756, State Totals, January 30, 1998.
42 Ibid.
43 Crawford, Jim "Responding to Unz-Supported Claims" at his website ourworld.
compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/unzargs.htm
44 Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics at http:llstats.bls.govl - inflation calculator.
45 Ibid.
46 Limited English Proficient (LEP) cost Study, Fiscal Year 1 987-88, Arizona
Department of Education, page 4.
4 7 Response by Ana Doan, Director of Bilingual Education and Curriculum for
Nogales Unified School District, to a survey submitted to her by Senator Joe Eddie Lopez,
June, 2000.
48 English Acquisition Services: A Summary of Bilingual and English as a Second
Language Programs, Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1998-99, Page 12.
40 Parrish, Thomas, "A Cost Analysis of Alternative Instructional Models for Limited
English Proficient Students in California", journal of Education Finance, 1994.
50 Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics at http://stats.bls.gov/ - inflation calculator.
il English Acquisition Services: A Summary of Bilingual and English as a Second
Language Programs, Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1998-99, Page 6.
:,- Response by Ana Doan, Director of Bilingual Education and Curriculum for
Nogales Unified School District, to a survey submitted to her by Senator Joe Eddie Lopez,
June, 2000.
53 Intercultural Development Research Association, Tucson Unified School District:
External Audit of the Bilingual Education and Hispanic Studies Department, February,
1998, page 179.
, -1 Education Statistics Quarterly, The Common Core of Data, "Early Estimates of
Public Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics; School Year 1999-2000".
APPENDIX
'J udge Alfredo Marquez's Order for a Cost S tudy
Z
7 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 MIHAM FEORES, individually and as a parent of)
MIRIAM FLORES. a minor child, et. a].. 1 CIV 92-596 TUC ACM
9 )
Plaintiffs. 1
10 v. 1
1
)
1 ORDER
)
13
Daclt~ro-~ yment Relief
15
On January 24, 2 0 , this Courr issued a declaratory judgment against the Defendants
16
for failing ro provide limited English proficient (LEP) children with a program of instruction
1 7
1 I
calculared to mnke &ern proficienf in speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English.
18
whilr rnabling them w master the standad aadernic curriculum as required of all students. S&
19
hu v . Yrchalj, 414 U .S. 563 ( 1 971) (hilure to provide English instruction to students of Chlnese
20
descmr who do nor speak English denies them a meaningful opponuniry to participate in public
il
duczrion and vlolares Title VI, 42 U.S.C.4 2000d). The Court's ruling came against a backdrop
-3 7
L ..
of sure inacrion, exisring in 1992 when Plaintiffs filed the class action law suit and continuing
2:
throug- h rhe duracion of thc case.
2 4
This Courr held r h i a~s a matter of law rhe State's minimum base lev4 for funding Lau
' 5
programs' kars no relation to the amal fundirig needed to ensure that =P smdenw are achieving
26
2 8 'Now being called the English Acquisirirsn Rogram (EAP).
45
1 mastrr!: of the State's specified "cssent~als kills. " (Ju Jgrnerrt at 23 .) The Coun ruled that the
2 State's appropriation of $150.00 per LEP scuden1 is arbitrary and capricious bccause ir is not
3 reasonably caizuiated to ef'fectively implemcnr the Lau programs adopted by the Nogalcs Gnified
4 School District (KCSD), which have been approved by the State. (Judgment at 23 .) The Coun
5 made this finding based on a 1987-88 cost study that showed it cost approximately S4SQ.M per
6 LEP srudenr 10 provide Lau program insvucrion.
7 .4r the tim the Court ruled, Defendants questioned rhe reliability of their own 1987-88
8 cosr study. Defendants attacked their studres' credibility because ir was so old, and the
9 methodology for the study was not ascerrainable and, therefore, its irilegrity was guestiouable.
10 The Stare had never updated the 1987-88 study. At trial, the Dcfidanr informed the Court thst
11 the State legislature had established the English as a Second Language and Bilingual Education
1 Z Study Commitlee to conduct a cost study to determine the amount of funding provided by the Stat e
13 and Federal governments for English instruction of LEP students and the amount of rnoney being
14 spetnf by schools ro educate those students. in thc Judgniuit issued by chis Court January 24,
15 2000, the Court noted that this was the first step the State needed lo take towards setting a
16 ;nininium base funding level for Lau programs that would not be arbitrary and capricious.
I7 (Judgrnemt at 23. )
18 The Cornmitree wsls supposed to submi: the repon m rhe Governor's office by December
19 1, 1999. to recommend the level of funding mussary to supporr the program. that it decemned
20 to be rhe most effective. The Repon was timely submitted, but ir faiied to contain the
21 recommendations for funding kvels. Afrer the regular legislative session convened in January,
22 2000. Plaintiffs sem a lener to che legislature asking that the cosr study be performed. A Senare
23 bill was introduced char would have provided for the study, but it was defeated. Several
2L amendments WFXY also deftated whlch would have provided funding for the State Department of
2 Educa:ion to perform the cost study ?he lepslativc session ended April 18, u#K), with the State
26 continuing irs pattern of inaction.
'7
1 June 6. 2 0 . Governor Hull convened a special session on edlication to address a 0.6
2 % furding increase UI the state sales tax for specified educational programs. Lau progranls werc
3 removed from the iisr of permissible items to be funded by the stare sales ax, Again. the
4 legislature rqjected an amendment thar required the state to conduct the cost study of Lau
5 programs. On June 30, 2000, Governor Hull signed the bill providing for the increase in slate
ti ssles tax to finance educarion. Again, the snte failed to take any action to fund Lau p r o a m in
7 ,Arizona at a level reasonably calculated ro make LEP studrlirs proficient in speakiug,
8 understandmg. reading? and writing English. Contrary to the informarion provided to this Court
9 in January of 2000, rht Suie has nor even taken the first step of conducting the cost study.
10 Against this backdrop. Plaintiff's Motion for Post-judgment Relief ash this Courr to
I 1 order he Sale to conducr the cosr srudy by November 1, 2000, so that. the State legislature will
I2 be in a posirion to hnd .4rizona's I.au programs during its next legislarive session, which begins
13 Januars 1, 2001. This is especially imporranr because Arizona has a biannual budget so unless
14 funding is secnred this session, LEP students will have tr, wait until 2003 to scc anv improvement
15 in fucding for Lau programs.
16 Defendants, twwcver, suggest that Further dehy is necessary because conducting chc cosr
17 stud}. now s unrealiuic and couarerproducuve in light of the Consent Decree entered in this action
18 in June. 2000. NOW char Defendants have agreed to make procedural and substantive revisions
19 ro :hr State hu programs. as soughr by Plaintiffs in his very dass action Jaw suit, thc cost study
20 can only be conducred afier the changes are irnpiemenced and in place for some period of time.
2 1 OrJy ~ h r na,f ter the Department of Education has had an opportunity to determine which programs
22 are working well. should the cost of the Lau Programs be calculated. Besides, there 1s a
23 referrndum item. Proposirioc 203, on the November ballot which will repeal Lhe existing biliuyual
24 educetlon statures and adopt a one-year immersion program for LEP students.
25 Defendants propose that during this next legislative session the Department of Education
26 will ask the legislature tc provide S300.000 in fundkg to conduct rhe cost srudy and perform tfic
'7
28 4 7
rnon~toring required under the Cofisen Decree. If funded by the Iegislanure. the study wou:d
begn in the summer of 2001 and be complete in the spring of 2002. This would be Jusf in rime
for the next biannual budget in 2003.
This Court is nor surprised by Defendants' suggestion to continue to delay appropr iatjng
adw-uarr fmding far Lau program in Arizona, nor is the Court surprised by the continued
inaction of the Srate legislarure. Roosevelt E w r vS c b l D ~ cNot. 6 6. et al. v. G
-, (Jbosrvelr J) 877 P.M 806 (1994) (en banc), =eel &X&QU& &,ill v.
U J S & S . &'~2'~21195)0 P.2d 1141 (1997). w,rem and, %O P.2d 633
(1998) (continued legislative refusal to rake action as directed by the state coum to remedy
disparities in school financing). The Court is, however, surprised by tbr Defendants' brazen
argument that a cost assessment annot be done now because ir should nor be "based on models
that have not ken getting the job done " (Response at 3.)2 For example, Defendants argue: "-4
stud of *e state's English Acquisition Programs prior to implemenlarion of the changes
envisioned by the Consenr Order would, however, be just that-an assessment of the costs of a
system that both plaintifis and defendants agree was not appropriate." 16
This Coun' Order of January 24, 2000, made 64 specific Findings of Fact and nor one
criticized the Lau models being u d tn teach I-EP studma in Arizona. The parries agreed "that
:he Sure of Ar~zanah as prescribed, and NUSD has adopted, models that are generally regarded
by exprns as sound designs for cffecuve Lau instruction." (Judgnlent at 22.) The Judgmtnr
enrered b} this Court was that the primary reason the Lsu programs failed LEP students in
h'ogslzs, ~ r i z c n aw, as because the programs were nor adequately funded by the State.
Pi~nt~ffRse'p ly accurately reflects the findmgs and conclusions of this Cow. as follows
. . .The Court determined in its Conclusions of Law tbar the Stare of Arizona
had prescribed, ancl NUSD had adopted, models that are generally regarded by
experts as sound designs for effective Lau instrucrion. Judgment ac 22,
Conclus~on of Law (A)(3). The Coun further conclucicd that thr state's
mlnimum $150 appropriation per LEP student, in combinat~onw ith irs property
?This same langurige is reflected in Proposition 2003
1 based finance scheme, is hidequare and has resulted in the fallowing h u
program deficiencies:
7
1. Too many students in a classroom.
'7 Not enough classrooms. 5: Not enough qualified teachers, including teachers to teach ESL
and bilingual teachers to teach content area rmdies.
4. Not enough reacher aides.
5 . An inadequate tutoring program, and
6. Insufficient reaching materials for both ESL classes and canrenr
area courses.
7 Thrse deficiencies are not the result of an inadequate model. Tk modei was
prescribed by the state and adopted by NUSD. LB, at 22. The problem is the
S state's inadequae funding to support the model.
9 Reply ar 4-5 (ciring Judgment at 22.)
10 This Court agrees with Plaintiffs, as follows:
There is no reason to wair to address [the] cost of the deficiencies
identified by thr Court. The msl implications of those deficiencies have
nor chan ed as a result of the Consent Order. The Consent Order did not
change t f e models for providing bilingual and ESL instruction ar all.
Instead, the Consent Order rescribes implementation procedures for
chose models. . . . While $ ere may be additional msc implications
associated with the Consent Order, they are most assuredly modest
compared to the structural funding problems ~dentifiedb y the Court.
Reply a[ 4-5. Addirionally, the COUa~dd s that even if Proposition 203 passes there wiI1 still be
costs associated with the "newh English immersion model. There are cnsts which are common
to all programs of insrrucrion for U P snxdents.
The Courr is nor persuaded t h a ~a specific model must be implemented and successfully
operaling before a cost assessment oan be prepared. Cost srudies are routinely performed prior
-2 0-
to implementing a model and serve the useful purpose of comparing costs cf various models.
1
hioaels do not become successfully operational withour funding; therefore, it is Defendana'
91
L L
- - ~ o p o s ario wait that is unrealistic and counrerproducrive. Unless, a realistic cost assessment is
L 3
prepared and available this legislative session. which begins January 8. 2001. Plaintiffs will miss
23
the biannual budget prows and will haw to wair unril 2003 for Lau programs to be fbfuaded ar a
25
level that is not arbitrary and caprjcious.
26
Judgment having been cmerd y a b t D efendants, Plaindff is m~iilrdto quiuhle relief.
- la,,20 FEnvl9r8o9n8m1, e9n8ty6.-d8 7 (91hC ir. 1994) (district court
has broad latitude to fashion equitable relief when necessary lo remedy an esrablishd wrong);
Swan v. Charlone-Meckltnhrp B o d of -, 402 U.S. 1. 15-17 (1971) (if school
authorities fail m their affirrnatlve oblig3tioris . . ., jud~ciiifa uthority may be invoked). The
"'rrmcd~apl owers of an equity cwrt must be adequate to the task. . . . rhey are not unlimited,'"
M ~ s s o u ~J~envc kms, 495 U.S. 33, 51 (1990) (quoting m bv. w .4 03 U.S. 124. 161
(197 1 ). 'and one of the most important considerations govtmi~lgt he exercise of cquirabic power
9 is proper respect for the incegriry and function of local govcrnmcnt instirutions." h & k h 4~95
I0 U .S. at 5 1. Obviously. here, the equitable relief requested by Plaintiffs encroaches on a domain
I I that primarily belongs to local government instirutions, including the State's Icgislalurc.
12 Therefore, the Court exercises ir equitable power a~nscientiouslya nd takes every step to allour
13 srarr aurhorities, whose powers are plenary, to decide how to provide LEP students with a
14 meaningful Lau program. Assessing the cost of such a program. however, does not involve public
15 policy ionsiderations. Against the egregious backdrop of sraie agency and judicial inactivity, thr
16 Court rnusr grant Plaintiffs‘ requested relief because without judicial action. the federal law
1" violations as ser out in this Cow's Order of January 24, 2000, will continue for 31 least mother
18 three years
19 Accordingly,
20 IT IS ORDERED that PlaintiFfs' Motion for Post-Judgrneni Relief iq GRANTED
2 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendms. the Srate of Arizona, shall prepare a cosr
22 srudy to establish the proper appropriation to effectiveiy inpianent the State's Lau educational
E rheoi),.
23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED r h a ~th e cosr study shall be prepared in a timelv fashion
25 so [ha! the -2rizona legislature can appropriate funding for Lau programs during the upcoming
2 6
17
28
1 biannual budge1 session. beginning January, 2001.
2 IT IS FUR= ORD&RED that as m the anc remaining issue in this litigatioh
3 teacher certification or language endorsemenrs. a Retrial Confncrcr shall be held before this
3 Court an November 3, 2000 at 1 1 :30 a.m.
5
6 Dated this /a dL day of October. 2000.
Senior U,S. District Judge
.es vs. Arizona Consent Order
Janet Sapolitano
A'fTORNEY GENERAL
Lyms C Adans (01 1367)
Assistant Attorney General
1275 West Washington
Phoenix, A2 85007
(602) 542-833 1
Attorneys for Defendants
Timothy M. Hogan (004567)
ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW
Ih' THE PUBLIC INTEREST
202 E. McDowell Road, Suite 153
Phoenix. AZ 85004
(602) 255-8850
Attolneys for Plainriffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
MIRIAM FLORES, individuauy
and as n parent of Miriam
Flo~esn, linor child, et. al,
Plaintiffs,
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, et a).,
Defendants.
I I CIV 92-596 TUC ACM
CONSENT ORDER
.
23 I/ I. LEP DETERNI~'AT1ON CR1.TERIA
2 1
22
3/( * Pursuant to Anzona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") 5 15-756(7), the Superintendent of
In order to setrle certain issues without need for a trial, thr: par-ties to t h s action, by and
[hi-oush theu counsel undersigned, hereby entel Into cbs Consent Order.
?j I/ Public Instruction (the "Superintendent") is charged wit11 the selection of a List of
I tests and the setting of test scores to deternim whether u child is Iimiced English
pl.ofic~enr ("LEP"). llle Superinrendent shall catry out this mandare before July 1,
2000. The test scores adopted by the Superintendent os indicating English language
pioficiexlcy shrill bz based on the test vrsdorr' cut scores fc)l-rmll tcst lucluded on the 1
list prepared pursuatlt to A.R.S. 9 15-756(7).
B. After the List of tests has been co~npileda nd the scores deternur~edt,h e Superintenden;
shall distribute that mformation, as well as any additional explanatory mare~lalsth at
the Superintendent deem necessary, to 'all school districts and chaster schools in the
state. rile Superintendent shall also designate individuals w i t h the Department of
Education (the "Department") as contacts regarding the tests, in the event school
dlsckcts 01- char.ter school5 need furthes mfosmation or assistance
11. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
A. Duties of the State Board of Education.
The State Board of Education (the "Stare Boa.rd"os rhe "Board") shall amend its existingndes
regalding bilingual education and English as a second language (TESL") I1.rstructjon, or enact new
n~lest,h at effectuate the following policies:
1. After a student is exited. fYom a L,au program, that exited student shall be
reassessed in each of the two yeass following the student's exlt.'
2. The reassessment s h d consist of tests of the exited student's reading and writing
skills, math skills and mastery of academic content areas
3 The exited' student's scores on the reltssessment rests shall be compared to the
scores of other stude~~otsf the same age or grade level w i t h the state to
determine whether the student is perfox-filing at a satisfactol-y level.
\
4 h reassessing ;ID exited student's math skills and content area mastely, a-scflool
district may use either the regularly adrliuistered Arizona Instnlment to Measure
Standards (the "AIlMS Test") or the Stanford 9 Test.
5. In reassessing an exlted student 's reading a d writing skjlls, a school district may
Lnu v Ntrl~ols4. 14 U.S.5 63 (1974). requires chat school disrricrs prov~deLEPs tudents with a program of
~nslrucrlonc ~liulsicdro rnnkz them profic~cntIn spetlking, undcrstandlng. rcxdtng, and writing English so thai heycan
sch~cvtch e ssne scadsrmc standnrds required of all oo~esrt udents. Programs rhsr arc opcrrateclpiirsunnr to themandate
of tht Diu case are referred to as "LIUpro grams."
use my of tests identified by the Supelintrnde~ltp ursusnr to A.R.S. B 15-
756(7), or it may use my of the tests (if any) identified by the Superintendent
pursuant to Section 1I.B. below.
The determination of whether an exited student has performed satisractol-ily on the
reassessment tests sllall be based on the following:
a. If one of the tests selected by the Superintendent pursuarlt to A.R.S. 8 15-
756(7) is used as a reassessment rest, a student must score ar or above the
proficiellcy score establislled by the Superintendent for that test.
b. If the Stanford 9 Test is used as n reassessment test for 111ath skills and
content area rnasrery, n student must score at or above the proficiency score
established by the Superintendent for rhat rest in connection with her
responsibihties pursuant to A.R.S. H 15-756(7).
c. If the AIMS test is used as a reassessment test for math skills and content
area mastery. a student must meet or exceed the ninimum competency
standards adopted by the Board pursuant to A.R.S. 5 15-203 (the ''Board's
Academic Standards").
d. If a test selected by the Superinterident pursuant to Section 1I.B of this Order
is used as a reassessnierlt test for reading and writing skills, a student must
score at or above the proficiency scol-e established by the Superintendent for
that rest.
Exited studenrs who do not perform satisfactorily on the ~.eassessmentte sts in the
two years foLlowlng their emt from a Latl program shall, subject to parental
consent, be re-enrolled jn a LULpLr ogram and/or given colnpensatosy instruction
uned at cunng the skill or h~owledge deficits revealed by the reassessuEnt
results.
"Compensatory msrruction" may include individual or small goup jnstluction,
extended day classes, summer school and intersession school.
9. The stark Board shall adopt the rules described in ths section before December
3 1,2000.
13. Duties of the Suue~intendent.
1. If, after consultation with the testing company that prepared the test at Issue. the
Superlntendexlt determines that a test for reading and writing assessment selected
bj. the Superintendent purrumt TO A R .< 8 15-75617) may also be used for
reassessment of exited students, such test lnay be used for reassessnxnt of a
student. If such tests are used for reassessment, the test scores used to determine
a student's cun-ent English pi-oficiency shallnot be lower than the test scores used
to initially derernine whetller the child was LEP.
2. If, after consultation with the testing conlpony, the Szrperinte~~dednett ermines that
the tests selected pursuant to A.R.S. 6 15-756(7) for reading and writing
asessnlent cannot be used for reassessnlent of exited students, the Superintendent
shall select a list of tests chat can be used by school districts and charter schools
for 1.eadi.n~a nd writing luissessnlent of students who have been exited from Lcirl
programs. The Superintendent shall also determine the acceptable score for each
of the selected tests. An 'hcceptable score" shall at least be equivalent to the score
that would hnve indicated initially that the student was not LEP. The
Superintendent shall create the 1.eassesslnznI test list, if necessary, and determine
the required test scores prior to December 31, 2000.
,
111. EKGIIISH LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
llle State Board shall anlend its existme nlles regarding bilingual education and ESL
instruction, or enact new n~lest,h at require the following:
A. Daily insciuction in Enslish language developnmt. The English language iustl-uccion
shall be appropriate to the level of English proficiency and shall include listening and
speahnz skills. reading and writing skills, and cognitive and acadenic development in
English.
B. Diiiy iusttuction in basic silbject areas that is undrrstu~dahlr and appropriarr to the
level of acaderluc achievcnlent of the LEP student, i\rld 1s jll confonrriry with acceptzd
strategies for teaching LEP students.
C Thz curric~dum of all biltugual education and ESL programs shall incorporate the
I Board's Academic Standards and shall be comparable in amount, scope, and quality ro
I that provided to English proficient students.
I i D ?Ile State Board shall adopt the rules desci-ibed in tlis secricm before December 31,
I 2000.
IV. LEP INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLANS
The State Rowd shall anlend its existing tvles regarding bilingual education and ESL
instn~ctiono. r enact new nlles, to include the following:
I A On request of a parent or legal guardian with regard ro that parent or legal guard~an's
I
own LEP sntdent, the principal of the student's school shall require a meeting with the I
I
piincipal or principal's designee, the parent 01. legal guardian, and the classroom teacher
to review the student's progress in nchieving proficiency iu the English language or in
making progress toward tfle Boar'd's Acadermc Standards and to make nlod$~cations to
the student's instruction iu order to address identified problems.
B. LEP students who are not progressing toward achievhg proficiency of the Board's
Academic Standasds, as evidenced by failure to improve scores on tests conducted
pur-suaut tn A.R.S. $$ 15-741(A)(2) and (3), shall be provided additional compensatory
insr~uctionto help them acheve those academic standards.
C. The modifications to a student's instn~ctiond escribed m Section 1V.A of ths Order and
the conlpensatory insrruction described in Section 1V.B shall be provided in the formof
an Indi\.idual Education Plan ("IEP").
D E P s shaU also be provided to students (1) whose school has roo few LEP students at a
given grade level to 1.equi1-e maintenance of a regulitr bilingual education program or L
ESL prosram for that _erade level, or (2) whose parents or legal guardians withhold
consent to place a student a regular La11 progskml
An IEF required by Section IV.D shilll be prcpwed by au IEP teain comprised of the
scllool principal or the principal's designee, one of the srndent's acadernic subject
reachers, the student's La21 program teacher or a~iotller certified teached who has o
bh_nual education of ESL endorsement, and the parent(s) or legal guardim(s), unless
they decide not to participate in the IEP team If the pare~lt(s)o r legal guardian(s) so
desu.e, the IEP team shall also include one advocate for the student selected by the
student's parent(s) or. legal guardian(s) a~ldlorth e student.
The EPt eam shall determine the scope andlor type of seivices the student ~\:ilIn erd to
bccorne proficient in English. The cumculum of d IEPs required by Section 1V.D shall
jncorporate the academic standards adopted by the Board pursuant to A.R.S. 6 15-
70lnnd shall be con~parableir t amount, scope, and quality KO that PI-ovidedt o English
proficient students
Ljpon request by the Department, o copy of tile IEP shaU be submitted to the
Department, along with a s ~ ~ n norf yth e student's progress, including academic gain
as nleastued by the AIMS Test, the Stanford 9 Test, or other school assessnxnts for use
in the Depatrn-tent's annual English Acquisition Report to the Legislat~u-e.
The IEP is not required to be implemented by a classl-oom teacher who possesses a basic
or standard certlilcate to teach and a bilingual or ESL endorsement, and m y be I
implemented by myc errificated teacher. In the latter circ~rnst~mcheo,w ever. n teacher
who possesses 5 bssic or standard certificate to teach and a bihlgunl or ESL
endorsement shc?U collaborate with the classroom teacher in the unplementation of the
IEP, ulcludin~ documentation of peiiodic reviews of the student's progress toward I
Enghsh proficiency and content area knowledge, as well as plans to remedy any lack of I
progress.
The Stare Board shdl adopt rhe rules described in this section before December 31,
2000.
1'. MONITORING
A. Duties of'the State Board.
The State Board shall i m n d its existing ~ulasr egarding bilingual educatioxi and ESL
instruction, or enacr new niles, to include the following:
1 If the monitoring report described in Section V.B of this Order indicates that a
school district or charter school is not in compliance with state or federal laws
regardins LEP students, the district or chal-tsr sd~ooslh all submit a corrective
nction plan to the Depar-tmeut within sixty days fi'om the date of the report.
2. The State Board sl~alal dopt the n~lesd escribed in this section before December
3 1 , 2000.
B. Duties of the Superintendent.
1. The Supelintendent shall direct the Department to monitor each year at least
twelve school districts or charter schools fiom the f3ty school districts or charter
schools in tlis State with the highest number of LEP students. The Department
shall monitor all fifry school district or charter schools with the highest number of
LEP students in the State at leasr once every four years.
2. The S~~perinrendesnhta ll direct the Department to ~nonicole. ach year at least ten
school disu-icts or chater schools that are nor included in the fifty described in
Section V.B. 1 of this Order
3. The Superinrendenr shall direct the Depa~-trne~tolt mo~lltole-a ch year at least ten
school dismcts or charter- schools that, pursu'mt to A.R.S. 5 15-754, -are not
required to provide b h g u a l education plpgrnmc or ESL p r o g l ~ ~fo~r a~ mqa jority
of rhek grade levels.
3. The school districrs aud charter schools described in the previous Sections V.B. 1,
.2. and .3 of ths Order shall be chosen in the Department's sole discretion based
upon the Depai-rnzn:'s review of the reports submitted pursuant to A.R.S. !j 15-
755.
ln addition, the Department sliall n~onitc>orf any school district or. cha~.trrs chool
if the Departmen: receives a doc~~xilc~ltewcrli,t ten con~plaintf rom any citizen, or
a conlplaint from rhe United States Deparcrnent of Education or from the United
States Ofiice of Civil Rights regarding n district's or charter school's corl~pliance
with state or federal law regarding LEP students.
The monitoring I-equired by this Section V shall be on-site monitoring and shall
include classroom observations, cu+iculur~re~v iews, faculty intelviews, student
secor-ds, and a review of LEP program. The Department may use bhgual
education or ESL endorsed personnel from other schools to asslst with the
monitoring.
Based on the results of its u~ollitoringt,h e Department shall determine whether or
not the school dist~lcto r charter school is conlplying wirh state aud federal laws
applicable to LEP students.
The Depamnent shall issue o report on the results of its monitoring wirhiu forty-five
days after completing the nlonitoriq.
Within sixty days following the issuance of the Departnent's repon, the district
nr chaner school receiving the repon shall prepare and submit to the Department
n conecrlve act~on plan that sets forth steps that will be taken to comect the
deficiencies (if any) noted in the Department's report
Within thirty days after its receipt of a district's or charter school's corrective
\
action plan,\ the Department shall review such corrective action plan, xnd may
require changes to the corrective act~onp lm.
rlfte~t.h e Department has reviewed a district's or charter school's corrective action
plan and has made ally changes it determines are necessay, the corrective action
plan shall be retuned to the dismct or charter school.
W i t h thirty days after receiving its conect~ve action plan back from the
Dcpartn~n,t t he district or charter school shall begin in~plenentingt he measures
set forth in its corrective action plan.
1.3 llie Department shall conduct a follow-up evali~ation of the district or' chsrter. I
I1 school within one year after the date it issord the chsilged correcnve action plan. 1
14. If the Department finds continued non-conlpliance during -the follow-up
evaluation, the district or charter school shall be refei~edto the State Board for a
cletemination, p~usuautt o A.R.S. $ 15-755(D), of nun-coi~lpharlcef or purposes I of continuing to receive group B weight funds for LEP students, as described in I
II A.R.S. 6 15-943. A district or charter school deternGned to be non-conlpliant I
' II pursuant to this subsection shail not reduce the nnlount of filnds spent on its LEP (
programs as the result of its loss of group B weight funds for its LEP students
because of irs continued non-compliance.
15. The Departnlenr shall monitor all districts or charer schools that the State Board
has determined, pursuant to A.R.S. C;I 15-755(D), 'are non-complimr and are no
longer receiving group B weight funds for T,EP students to ensure that such
II districts or charter schools do not reduce the amount of fimds spent on their
16 I
bilingual education programs as the result of its loss of group B weisht funds.
16. Thi: Deparunent shall hegin the mnorritoring described in th~sse ction before July
w
APPROVED AS TO FORii AND CONTEA! ths 2 day of June, 2000
ARIZONA C E h J R FOR LAW IN THE JANET NAPOLITANO
PUBLIC INEREST Attorney General
Ly&e C. Adams
Attorneys for Plantiffs Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
PROPOSITION 203
AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
TITLE 15, CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 3.1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, IS REPEALED. SEC.
3. TTTLE 15, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, IS AMENDED BY ADDING A
NEW ARTICLE 3.1, ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN IN PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Sec. 1. Findings and Declarations
The People of Arizona find and declare:
1. The English language is the national public language of the United States of
America and of the state of Arizona. It is spoken by the vast majority of Arizona
residents, and is also the leading world language for science, technology, and
international business, thereby being the language of economic opportunity; and
2. Immigrant parents are eager to have their children acquire a good knowledge
of English, thereby allowing them to fully participate in the American Dream of
economic and social advancement; and
3. The government and the public schools of Arizona have a moral obligation and
a constitutional duty to provide all of Arizona's children, regardless of their ethnicity or
national origins, with the skills necessary to become productive members of our society.
Of these skills, literacy in the English language is among the most important.
4. The public schools of Arizona currently do an inadequate job of educating
immigrant children, wasting financial resources on costly experimental language
programs whose failure over the past two decades is demonstrated by the current high
drop-out rates and low English literacy levels of many immigrant children.
5. Young immigrant children can easily acquire full fluency in a new language,
such as English, if they are heavily exposed to that language in the classroom at an
early age.
6. Therefore it is resolved that: all children in Arizona public schools shall be
taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible.
7. Under circumstances in which portions of this statute are subject to conflicting
~nterpretations,t hese Findings and Declarations shall be assumed to contain the
governing intent of the statute.
Sec. 2. Repeal
Title 15, chapter 7, article 3.1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is repealed.
Sec. 3. Title 15, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new
article 3.1, to read:
ARTICLE 3.1. ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN IN PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
SECTION 15-751. DEFINITIONS
IN THIS ARTICLE,
1. "BILINGUAL EDUCATION/NATIVE LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION" MEANS A
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR STUDENTS IN WHICH MUCH OR ALL
INSTRUCTION, TEXTBOOKS, OR TEACHING MATERIALS ARE IN THE CHILD'S NATIVE
LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH.
2. "ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM" MEANS A CLASSROOM IN WHICH
ENGLISH IS THE LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION USED BY THE TEACHING PERSONNEL,
AND IN WHICH SUCH TEACHING PERSONNEL POSSESS A GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS ENCOMPASS BOTH ENGLISH
LANGUAGE MAINSTREAM CLASSROOMS AND SHELTERED ENGLISH IMMERSION
CLASSROOMS
3. "ENGLISH LANGUAGE MAINSTREAM CLASSROOM" MEANS A CLASSROOM IN
WHICH THE STUDENTS EITHER ARE NATIVE ENGLISH LANGUAGE SPEAKERS OR
ALREADY HAVE ACQUIRED REASONABLE FLUENCY IN ENGLISH.
4. "ENGLISH LEARNER" OR "LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENT" MEANS
A CHILD WHO DOES NOT SPEAK ENGLISH OR WHOSE NATIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT
ENGLISH, AND WHO IS NOT CURRENTLY ABLE TO PERFORM ORDINARY CLASSROOM
WORK IN ENGLISH.
5. "SHELTERED ENGLISH IMMERSION" OR "STRUCTURED ENGLISH
IMMERSION" MEANS AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR YOUNG
CHILDREN IN WHICH NEARLY ALL CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION IS IN ENGLISH BUT
WITH THE CURRICULUM AND PRESENTATION DESIGNED FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE
LEARNING THE LANGUAGE. BOOKS AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS ARE IN
ENGLISH AND ALL READING, WRITING, AND SUBJECT MATER ARE TAUGHT IN
ENGLISH. ALTHOUGH TEACHERS MAY USE A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF THE CHILD'S
NATIVE LANGUAGE WHEN NECESSARY, NO SUBJECT MAiTER SHALL BE TAUGHT IN
ANY LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH, AND CHILDREN IN THIS PROGRAM LEARN TO
READ AND WRITE SOLELY IN ENGLISH. THIS EDUCATIONAL METHODOLOGY
REPRESENTS THE STANDARD DEFINITION OF "SHELTERED ENGLISH" OR
"STRUCTURED ENGLISH" FOUND IN EDUCATIONAL LITERATURE.
SECTION 15-752. ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 15-753, ALL CHILDREN
IN ARIZONA PUBLIC SCHOOLS SHALL BE TAUGHT ENGLISH BY BEING TAUGHT IN
ENGLISH AND ALL CHILDREN SHALL BE PLACED IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
CLASSROOMS. CHILDREN WHO ARE ENGLISH LEARNERS SHALL BE EDUCATED
THROUGH SHELTERED ENGLISH IMMERSION DURING A TEMPORARY TRANSITION
PERIOD NOT NORMALLY INTENDED TO EXCEED ONE YEAR. LOCAL SCHOOLS SHALL
BE PERMrITED BUT NOT REQUIRED TO PLACE IN THE SAME CLASSROOM ENGLISH
LEARNERS OF DIFFERENT AGES BUT WHOSE DEGREE OF ENGUSH PROFICIENCY IS
SIMILAR. LOCAL SCHOOLS SHALL BE ENCOURAGED TO MIX TOGETHER IN THE SAME
CLASSROOM ENGLISH LEARNERS FROM DIFFERENT NATIVE-LANGUAGE GROUPS BUT
WITH THE SAME DEGREE OF ENGLISH FLUENCY. ONCE ENGLISH LEARNERS HAVE
ACQUIRED A GOOD WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH AND ARE ABLE TO DO
REGULAR SCHOOL WORK IN ENGLISH, THEY SHALL NO LONGER BE CLASSIFIED AS
ENGLISH LEARNERS AND SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO ENGLISH LANGUAGE
MAINSTREAM CLASSROOMS. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, CURRENT PER CAPITA
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. FOREIGN
LANGUAGE CLASSES FOR CHILDREN WHO ALREADY KNOW ENGLISH SHALL BE
COMPLETELY UNAFFECTED, AS SHALL SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR
PHYSICALLY- OR MENTALLY-IMPAIRED STUDENTS.
SECTION 15-753. PARENTAL WAIVERS
A. THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 15-752 MAY BE WAIVED WITH THE PRIOR
WRlTTEN INFORMED CONSENT, TO BE PROVIDED ANNUALLY, OF THE CHILD'S
PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIAN UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED IN THIS
SECTION. SUCH INFORMED CONSENT SHALL REQUIRE THAT SAID PARENTS OR
LEGAL GUARDIAN PERSONALLY VISIT THE SCHOOL TO APPLY FOR THE WAIVER AND
THAT THEY THERE BE PROVIDED A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE EDUCATIONAL
MATERIALS TO BE USED IN THE DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM CHOICES AND
ALL THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO THE CHILD. IF A PARENTAL
WAIVER HAS BEEN GRANTED, THE AFFECTED CHILD SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO
CLASSES TEACHING ENGLISH AND OTHER SUBJECTS THROUGH BILINGUAL
EDUCATION TECHNIQUES OR OTHER GENERALLY RECOGNIZED EDUCATIONAL
METHODOLOGIES PERMTITED BY LAW. INDIVIDUAL SCHOOl IN WHICH 20
STUDENTS OR MORE OF A GIVEN GRADE LEVEL RECEIVE A WAIVER SHALL BE
REQUIRED TO OFFER SUCH A CLASS; IN ALL OTHER CASES, SUCH STUDENTS MUST
BE PERMrlTED TO TRANSFER TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL IN WHICH SUCH A CLASS IS
OFFERED.
B. THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A PARENTAL EXCEPTION WAIVER MAY BE
APPLIED FOR UNDER THIS SECnON ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. CHILDREN WHO ALREADY KNOW ENGLISH: THE CHILD ALREADY POSSESSES
GOOD ENGLISH LANGUAGE SKILLS, AS MEASURED BY ORAL EVALUATION OR
STANDARDIZED TESTS OF ENGLISH VOCABULARY COMPREHENSION, READING, AND
WRITING, IN WHICH THE CHILD SCORES APPROXIMATELY AT OR ABOVE THE STATE
AVERAGE FOR HIS GRADE LEVEL OR AT OR ABOVE THE 5TH GRADE AVERAGE,
WHICHEVER IS LOWER; OR
2. OLDER CHILDREN: THE CHILD IS AGE 10 YEARS OR OLDER, AND IT IS THE
INFORMED BELIEF OF THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL AND EDUCATIONAL STAFF THAT AN
ALTERNATE COURSE OF EDUCATIONAL STUDY WOULD BE BElTER SUITED TO THE
CHILD'S OVERALL EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS AND RAPID ACQUISITION OF BASIC
ENGLISH LANGUAGE SKILLS; OR
3. CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL INDIVIDUAL NEEDS: THE CHILD ALREADY HAS
BEEN PLACED FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN THIRTY CALENDAR DAYS DURING
THAT SCHOOL YEAR IN AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM AND IT IS
SUBSEQUENTLY THE INFORMED BELIEF OF THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL AND
EDUCATIONAL STAFF THAT THE CHILD HAS SUCH SPECIAL AND INDIVIDUAL
PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS, ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CHILD'S LACK OF
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY, THAT AN ALTERNATE COURSE OF EDUCATIONAL STUDY
WOULD BE BElTER SUITED TO THE CHILD'S OVERALL EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
AND RAPID ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH. A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF NO LESS THAN
250 WORDS DOCUMENTING THESE SPECIAL INDIVIDUAL NEEDS FOR THE SPECIFIC
CHILD MUST BE PROVIDED AND PERMANENTLY ADDED TO THE CHILD'S OFFICIAL
SCHOOL RECORDS, AND THE WAIVER APPLICATION MUST CONTAIN THE ORIGINAL
AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES OF BOTH THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL AND THE LOCAL
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS. ANY SUCH DECISION TO ISSUE SUCH AN
INDIVIDUAL WAIVER IS TO BE MADE SUBJECT TO THE EXAMINATION AND APPROVAL
OF THE LOCAL SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT, UNDER GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY
AND SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE LOCAL GOVERNING BOARD AND ULTIMATELY
THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION. TEACHERS AND LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS MAY
REJECT WAIVER REQUESTS WITHOUT EXPLANATION OR LEGAL CONSEQUENCE, THE
EXISTENCE OF SUCH SPECIAL INDIVIDUAL NEEDS SHALL NOT COMPEL ISSUANCE OF
A WAIVER, AND THE PARENTS SHALL BE FULLY INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHT TO
REFUSE TO AGREE TO A WAIVER.
SECTION 15-754. LEGAL STANDING AND PARENTAL ENFORCEMENT
AS DETAILED IN SECTIONS 15-752 AND 15-753, ALL ARIZONA SCHOOL
CHILDREN HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PROVIDED AT THEIR LOCAL SCHOOL WITH AN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE PUBLIC EDUCATION. THE PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN OF ANY
ARIZONA SCHOOL CHILD SHALL HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO SUE FOR ENFORCEMENT
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS STATUTE, AND IF SUCCESSFUL SHALL BE AWARDED
NORMAL AND CUSTOMARY ATTORNEY'S FEES AND ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES, BUT NOT PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. ANY SCHOOL BOARD
MEMBER OR OTHER ELECTED OFFICIAL OR ADMINISTRATOR WHO WILLFULLY AND
REPEATEDLY REFUSES TO IMPLEMENT THE TERMS OF THIS STATUTE MAY BE HELD
PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR FEES AND ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES BY THE
CHILD'S PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIAN, AND CANNOT BE SUBSEQUENTLY
INDEMNIFIED FOR SUCH ASSESSED DAMAGES BY ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE THIRD
PARTY. ANY INDIVIDUAL FOUND SO LIABLE SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM
OFFICE, AND SHALL BE BARRED FROM HOLDING ANY POSITION OF AUTHORlTY
ANYWHERE WITHIN THE ARIZONA PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR AN ADDITIONAL
PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS.
SECTION 15-755. STANDARDIZED TESTING FOR MONITORING EDUCATION
PROGRESS
IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS OF ALL ARIZONA
STUDENTS IN ACADEMIC SUBJECTS AND IN LEARNING ENGLISH IS PROPERLY
MONITORED, A STANDARDIZED, NATIONALLY-NORMED WRITFEN TEST OF ACADEMIC
SUBJECT MAlTER GIVEN IN ENGLISH SHALL BE ADMINISTERED AT LEAST ONCE EACH
YEAR TO ALL ARIZONA PUBLIC SCHOOLCHILDREN IN GRADES 2 AND HIGHER. ONLY
STUDENTS CLASSIFIED AS SEVERELY LEARNING DISABLED MAY BE EXEMPTED FROM
THIS TEST. THE PARTICULAR TEST TO BE USED SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE OFFICE
OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, AND IT IS INTENDED
THAT THE TEST SHALL GENERALLY REMAIN THE SAME FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE
NATIONAL PERCENTILE SCORES OF STUDENTS SHALL BE CONFIDENTIALLY
PROVIDED TO INDIVIDUAL PARENTS, AND THE AGGREGATED PERCENTILE SCORES
AND DISTRIBUTIONAL DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
SHALL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ON AN INTERNET WEB SITE; THE SCORES FOR
STUDENTS CLASSIFIED AS "LIMITED-ENGLISH" SHALL BE SEPARATELY SUB-AGGREGATED
AND MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE THERE AS WELL. ALTHOUGH
ADMINISTRATION OF THIS TEST IS REQUIRED SOLELY FOR MONITORING
EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS, ARIZONA PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATORS MAY
UTILIZE THESE TEST SCORES FOR OTHER PURPOSES AS WELL IF THEY SO CHOOSE.
Sec. 4. Severability
If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstances is held
invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can
be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the
provisions of this act are severable.
Sec. 5. Application
The provisions of this act cannot be waived, modified, or set aside by any elected
or appointed official or administrator, except as through the amendment process
provided for in the Arizona constitution.