English acquisition program cost study: phases I through IV

              The Arizona Department of Education
English Acquisition Program Cost Study-Phases I through IV
May 2001
English Acquisition Program Cost Study
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 1
Phase I: The Costs of Enalish Immersion In Six Model Proarams
Phase-level Executive Summary .............................................................. 1-1
Cost Components: Report by Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, LLC ......... 1-5
Program Components: Report by READ Institute .............................. 1-45
Phase 11: Statewide Incremental Costs and
Resources Available to Fund Enalish Acauisition Proarams
Report by Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, LLC ...................................... 11-1
Phase 111: The Costs of a Model Bilinqual Education Proaram
Phase-level Executive Summary ........................................................1 11-1
Cost Components: Report by Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, LLC .... 111-3
Program Components: Report by READ Institute .......................... 111-15
Phase IV: Incremental Costs and Resources Available to Fund
Enalish Acauisition Proarams in the Noaales Unified School District
Phase Executive Summary ................................................................... IV-1
Program Components: Report by READ Institute ............................. IV-5
Cost Components: Report by Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, LLC ... IV-43
sjobergevashen k i
Arizona Department of Education
English Acquisition Program Cost Study
Executive Summary
In February 2001, the ADE contracted with two entities for a four-part cost study of
English Acquisition Programs to identify and calculate the costs of the key elements
related to various educational approaches to delivering these services. During the ten
weeks of this study, one contractor, the Research in English Acquisition and
Development Institute (READ Institute), was tasked to provide qualitative analysis for all
sheltered or structured immersion and bilingual education programs reviewed for this
engagement. The ADE simultaneously contracted with a second firm, Sjoberg Evashenk
Consulting, LLC, to identify and analyze the cost elements related to programs reviewed
in this study and to project the resulting costs into 2002 Arizona cost of living dollars.
Additionally, Sjoberg Evashenk was asked to determine the resources spent and funds
designated for services to LEP students and project the amount of funding that could be
available for English Acquisition Programs in school year 2002.
This report conveys the results of the four phased study focusing on determining the
specific components and costs of six model English Immersion programs, identifjmg
statewide incremental costs and resources available for English Acquisition Programs,
ascertaining the elements and costs of a selected model Bilingual Program, and, finally,
discovering those unique aspects and the associated costs of the Nogales Unified School
District's programs that cannot be met within Structured or Sheltered Jmmersion
programs.
Generally, Sjoberg Evashenk found that the types, methods, and funding of programs to
deliver English Acquisition services have been the topic of debate for many years, but the
need to assist students to achieve English proficiency is universally supported. Currently,
there are countless and widely varying tools and techniques used in classrooms to deliver
LEP programs. Although the programs carry differing titles, many schools and districts
employ similar elements such as classroom aides, intensive language arts programs, and
mainstreaming LEP students to name a few; however, we found no patterns or
correlations between numbers of LEP students and spending.
/ Resources Spent and Available Statewide.
For the school year 1999-2000, nearly 400 school districts and public charter
schools reported serving nearly 146,000 limited English proficient students in
programs statewide. Generally, these programs are supported by federal funds,
local district funds, and state apportionment of general fund monies. The overall
funding formula for Arizona schools employs a bbblockg rant" concept-funding
is provided by the state, local and other non-federal sources, but the local school
sjobergevashenk 1
boards, county school superintendents, and districts determine the way these
funds are to be spent. Arizona school districts and charter schools reported having
more than $179 million, in total, available for serving their LEP students for the
school year 1999-2000. This amount is projected to grow to nearly $190 million
by the school year 2002. While much of this funding, $68.3 million, or 36
percent, is from federal funds and $64.1 million, or 34 percent, is from local
funds, the state will kick in the remaining $57.6 million, or 30 percent, of funding
for LEP services.
However, Sjoberg Evashenk found no correlation between the funding available
for LEP programs and the incremental costs associated with school districts' and
charter schools7 LEP programs. To understand how districts and charter schools
spent their resources, Sjoberg Evashenk surveyed 435 school districts and charter
schools in Arizona and obtained 174 responses representing approximately 60
percent of the state's LEP students. While the school districts and charter schools
responding to the survey reported nearly $41.1 million in incremental costs
associated with their LEP programs, the amounts spent per pupil varied widely-from
zero costs per pupil to a high of $4,676 reported by one district. It is
important to note that because of the state's block grant funding approach, funds
available for LEP students are not tied or related to spending. Moreover, in
calculating incremental costs for LEP services, funding provided to cover the cost
of basic educational programs benefiting all students was purposely omitted.
Therefore, while the calculations of funding available and incremental costs
suggest a "gap," these amounts are not directly related or comparable.
Survey responses revealed a distinct lack of relationships or patterns among the
districts and charter schools or with other demographic information when cost
information is compared. Specifically, data reveals:
No link between the proportions of LEP students in districts or charter
schools and the incremental costs of providing these services.
There is no correlation between incremental per student costs and the type
of district or school-namely, elementary, hgh school, unified, or charter
school-responding to the survey.
/' English Immersion Programs.
When Sjoberg Evashenk and the READ Institute separately delved into the
program intricacies of six model immersion programs operating in Arizona and
three other states, both firms found that each employ different philosophies and
techniques, yet share many similarities on the road toward fblfilling comparable
goals. For instance, not all use the same instructional methods-some embrace
Direct Instruction for the full cuniculum, others apply that technique for only
language arts. Still others follow a structured immersion program such that only
the language arts portion of the day focuses on English acquisition and students
sjobergevashenk
are mainstreamed for the balance of the day. However, many of the "model"
programs "shelter" extremely limited English proficient students, termed
"beginners," for a short time (typically six months to a year) to provide extensive
English instruction to assist students in quickly attaining a basic level of English
so they may move into the mainstream student environment.
Overall, the districts and charter schools operating the "model" English
Immersion Programs report that the costs related to providing teachers and other
services necessary for serving LEP students are not unlike those incurred in
delivering services for "mainstream" students and, therefore, not incremental to
LEP programs. Yet, Sjoberg Evashenk did find that the incremental costs directly
associated with these English acquisition programs vary widely. Specifically, it
found that the immersion programs at the six districts and schools currently incur
incremental costs between $185 and $3,008 per LEP student. Projected into
school year 2002 dollars, the English Immersion programs' costs grow to between
$192 and $3,068 per student.
/ Bilingual Education Program.
Similar to the immersion programs reviewed, Sjoberg Evashenk and the READ
Institute found that the model Bilingual Education Programs at the Creighton
Elementary School District share the approach that LEP children should be
immersed and integrated with mainstream students in order to become fluent in
English. Yet, the district also supports the philosophy that both Spanish-speaking
LEP students and native English speakers will profit academically and in other
ways by developing oral and literacy skills in Spanish as well as English. Thus,
ths model Bilingual Program employs bilingualhiliterate philosophies and
techniques, while also focusing on rapid English literacy.
While the Bilingual Programs provide several additional services and assistance
to LEP students thus generating some identifiable incremental costs such as
classroom aides, extensive staff training and professional development, two-language
textbooks, assessments, and compensatory education, these costs are not
unlike those found during our review of model immersion programs. Overall,
Sjoberg Evashenk's review reveals the incremental cost of Creighton7s Bilingual
Programs is slightly more than $6 million, or approximately $1,295 per LEP
student. Adjusted for 2002 dollars, ths figure amounts to $1,320.
/ Incremental Costs and Resources Available to the
Nogales Unified School District.
The Nogales district, located in an isolated stretch of southern Arizona, presents
some unique challenges in terms of English Acquisition programs. Both Sjoberg
Evashenk and the READ Institute found that the Nogales community interacts
sjobergevashenk 3
heavily with its adjacent Mexican "sister city"-Nogales, Sonora, Mexico.
Spanish is the primary language spoken on both sides of the border and the two
cities are tightly adjoined through family, commerce, and culture. For the most
part, all schools operate Sheltered or Structured Immersion programs instructing
LEP students in mainstream classes with extra services provided to those students
with extremely limited English proficiency-with the goal of quickly attaining a
basic level of English to allow them to move into mainstream classes.
Similar to what Sjoberg Evashenk found at other school districts operating
immersion programs, the Nogales district also incurs some additional or
incremental costs associated with providing services to LEP students such as
supplementary materials, additional teaching staff, adult and parent education
programs, bonuses paid for English as a Second Language (ESL) or Bilingual
endorsements, and staff training and development. Currently, the district incurs
more than $1.3 million, or $33 1.60 per student, in incremental costs to provide
services to its LEP students. Adjusted for 2002 dollars, total costs grow to
$1,329,604, yet the average per pupil cost drops to $3 13.18. Nogales reported
more than $1.8 million of total funding, or $365.86 per student, for the 1999-2000
school year available to fund LEP programs. Projecting to 2002, the amount
available per student grows to $41 1.56.
However, the current design of Nogales' Structured and Sheltered Immersion
programs may not fully address the unique and extraordinary needs of its LEP
population. Because of the prevalent use of Spanish throughout the community,
in local television and radio, in businesses, on school playgrounds and in
hallways, Nogales' students have very little exposure to the English language
outside the classroom environment. Although Nogales immerses most of its LEP
students in mainstream classes taught in English, the students might not receive
adequate reinforcement outside the classroom to build their English slulls adding
to the difficulty in achieving language proficiency. Further, to successfully
function in the Nogales area, students face the unique need to be literate in both
Spanish and English.
This report is presented in four discrete sections, each conveying the results of the
individual phases of the English Acquisition Cost Study. Within each section, phase-level
summaries and individual chapters written separately by each firm-Sjoberg
Evashenk and the MAD Institute-are provided that include detailed methodologies, in-depth
analyses, and conclusions.
4 sjobergevashenk
sjobergevashenk 5
PHASE I
Phase I-Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................... 1-1
Chapter 1:
Cost Components, Report by Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, LLC
Chapter Summary .............................................................................1 -5
Phoenix Advantage Charter School (Arizona) ................................ 1-11
Glendale Union High School District (Arizona)
Glendale High School ....................................................... 1-17
Thunderbird High School .............................................. 1-17
Bethlehem Area School District (Pennsylvania) .............................1 -25
RITE Program, Houston Independent School District (Texas) ....... 1-31
Seattle Public Schools' Bilingual Orientation Center (Washington)I-37
Chapter 2:
Program Components, Report by The READ Institute
Chapter Summary .......................................................................... 1-45
Phoenix Advantage Charter School (Arizona) ................................ 1-47
Glendale Union High School District (Arizona) Glendale High School .......................................................1 -53
Thunderbird High School ...................... .. ....................... 1-61
Bethlehem Area School District (Pennsylvania) .............................1 -69
RITE Program, Houston Independent School District (Texas) ....... 1-77
Seattle Public Schools' Bilingual Orientation Center (Washington)I-85
sjobergevashenk 1-i
Phase I
The Costs of English Immersion in Six Model Programs
Executive Summary
In February 2001, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) contracted with two
groups for a cost study of six English Immersion programs. During the five weeks of ths
phase of the study, one contractor, the Research in English Acquisition and Development
Institute (READ Institute), was tasked to provide qualitative program analysis for six
English Immersion programs. The ADE selected three Arizona public schools for
review: Phoenix Advantage Charter School, Thunderbird High School, and Glendale
High School. Additionally, the ADE and READ agreed upon three other out-of-state
programs: Bethlehem Area School District, Bethlehem Pennsylvania; the Rodeo Institute
for Teacher Excellence (RITE) Program, Houston Texas; and the Seattle Public Schools'
Bilingual Orientation Centers, Seattle Washington. The ADE simultaneously contracted
with a second firm, Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, LLC, to identify and analyze the cost
elements related to these six programs and to project the resulting costs into 2002
Arizona cost of living dollars.
This report conveys the results of Phase I of the cost study where the two groups
identified the key program and cost components of the selected model English Immersion
programs. Generally, the six immersion programs employ some different philosophies
and techniques, yet share many similarities on the road toward fulfilling comparable
goals. For instance, although each of the six programs are classified as English
Immersion, not all exercise the same instructional methods; some embrace Direct
Instruction-some for the full curriculum whle others apply that technique for only
language arts; and, still others follow a structured immersion program whereby language
arts focuses on English Acquisition and students are mainstreamed during the remainder
of the day. Finally, many of the selected programs "shelter" extremely limited English
proficient students, termed "beginners," for a short time (typically 6 months to a year) to
provide extensive English instruction to assist students to quickly acquire a basic level of
English so they may move into the mainstream student environment.
The READ Institute's review found common elements across all programs. Specifically,
many programs use reduced size classes during specialized English instructional time,
apply phonics-based reading and Direct Instruction teaching techniques, and provide high
levels of ongoing teacher training. In addition, many of these programs employ bilingual
teachers or aides who may use the students' native language on occasion to ease the
transition process. Further, all instruction in reading, writing, and other school subjects is
sjobergevashenk I- 1
given in a special Content-Based English Teaching curriculum. In each program
surveyed, teachers held high expectations for limited English proficient (LEP) students
and these students were taught the same cumculum as the mainstream students, albeit at
a slightly modified pace.
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, LLC, was tasked with identifying all the cost elements
related to delivering the selected model English Immersion programs. Overall, the
districts and charter schools report that most of the costs related to providing teachers and
other services necessary for serving LEP students are not unlike those incurred in
delivering services for "mainstream" students. Moreover, Sjoberg Evashenk found that
several of the programs approach teaching LEP students in similar ways: for example, the
Bethlehem and Glendale districts target English acquisition services through their
language arts courses and mainstream the LEP students for remainder of the day. These
English Acquisition language arts programs are taught in lieu of "mainstream" courses
and electives and typically consume most of the students7 day. Notwithstanding the
replacement of other course-work, the additional services and assistance that accompany
these districts' programs generate some identifiable incremental costs. In another
instance, the Seattle Bilingual Orientation Centers (BOCs) and Phoenix Advantage
provide "beginners" classes that for a time "sheltery7L EP students fiom the mainstream-again,
the majority of the classroom costs of these offerings replace the costs that the
district would normally incur to educate these pupils.
Of the selected programs reviewed, one element of incremental cost incurred by these
programs relates to reduced class sizes for LEP students. At schools in the Glendale
district, class sizes for "beginner" LEP students average about 3 1 percent smaller than the
average mainstream classes. In contrast, Bethlehem approaches class size fiom another
perspective. This district reduces the size of all classes in a school by nearly 17 percent
when it is determined to be "high or medium impact',-meaning the number of LEP
students in the school exceeds approximately 12 percent of total student enrollment.
However, Sjoberg Evashenk found that the Seattle BOCs, Phoenix Advantage, and the
Houston RITE program do not reduce class sizes even in those groups considered
beginners.
Additionally, English Acquisition programs commonly employ classroom aides to assist
LEP students; these costs are easiest to identify. While several of the programs devote at
least one aide for each English Acquisition classroom, it is important to note that some
districts and schools provide classroom aides (available to assist all children) as part of
their core method of providing regular educational services. For example, Phoenix
Advantage's Direct Instruction program provides an aide in every classroom as an
essential element for delivering the educational program. Further, the RITE program is
premised upon having "trainers" available daily to provide assistance to classroom
teachers and the students participating in their reading program.
1-2 sjobergevashenk
Overall, Sjoberg Evashenk found the costs of providing these English acquisition
programs vary widely. Specifically, Glendale and Bethlehem both appear to have
comprehensive, school-wide English Immersion programs currently reporting
incremental costs of $983 and $1,056 per LEP student, respectively. Although the
Phoenix Advantage and Houston RITE programs both employ Direct Instruction
programs, only Phoenix Advantage applies this approach to its full-scope educational
program. Sjoberg Evashenk's review reveals that Phoenix Advantage incurs two modest
incremental costs equating to nearly $1 85 per LEP student for the 1999-2000 school year.
RITE'S program, primarily a reading and language program targeted at pre-lundergarten
though grade 2 children, costs its private, nonprofit organization sponsor approximately
$1.3 million per year or approximately $238 per disadvantaged student served. Finally,
the Seattle Public Schools' Bilingual Orientation Centers that employ sheltered
immersion techniques incur costs of more than $3,000 per LEP student.
sjobergevashenk 1-3
1-4 sjobergevashenk
SJOBCRC LVASTI IrLr NK
ccvst41Lrlhc L I C
Phase I-Chapter 1
English Acquisition Program Element Cost Analysis
(Report by Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, LLC)
Chapter Summary
In February 200 1, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) contracted for a cost
review of six English Immersion programs. Under consultation with another group, the
Research in English Acquisition and Development Institute (READ Institute),
unaffiliated with Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, LLC, the department agreed to the study
of English Acquisition programs in place in Arizona and three other states: Texas,
Washington, and Pennsylvania. Although all six provide English acquisition services, the
natures of their programs range fiom a primary-level intensive reading program, to short-term
services provided to extremely limited English proficient (LEP) students, to district-wide
English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. As such, not all program costs and
elements can be compared.
The ADE selected three programs for review in Arizona-a kindergarten though grade 8
charter school, the Phoenix Advantage Charter School (Phoenix Advantage), and two
high schools, Thunderbird and Glendale, both in the Glendale Union High School District
(Glendale). Because Glendale provides LEP services district-wide, all costs gathered
relate to all LEP students in the district, not just the two selected schools. Therefore, in
our Phase I report, we will discuss the program cost elements in terms of five rather than
six selected programs. In addition to the three Arizona programs, the READ Institute
researchers selected a kindergarten to grade 5 ESL program in the Bethlehem Area
School District (Bethlehem) Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; in Houston, Texas, the researchers
chose the Rodeo Institute for Teacher Excellence (RITE Program), a privately-funded
reading and language program presented in selected schools in pre-kindergarten through
grade 2 classrooms; and, finally, the READ Institute selected the Seattle Public Schools'
Bilingual Orientation Centers (BOC) serving both elementary and secondary LEP
students.
Generally, we found that the five selected immersion programs employ some different
philosophies and techniques, yet share many similarities on the road toward fulfilling
comparable goals. For instance, although each of the programs are classified as English
Immersion, not all use the same instructional methods; some use Direct Instruction-sjobergevashenk
1-5
some for the full curriculum while others use that technique only for language arts
(reading, writing, speech, language, etc.); and, still others target their program such that
English Acquisition services are provided only during the language arts portion of the
day. Finally, several of the selected programs "shelteryye xtremely limited English
proficient students, termed "beginners," for a short time (typically 6 months to a year) to
provide extensive English instruction to assist students to quickly achieve a basic level of
English so they may move into the mainstream curriculum.
Despite the variety of approaches and techniques applied, what is clear is generally these
immersion programs are integrated into the overall school or district operation.
Thus, only certain program
elements generate
additional or incremental
costs for providing services
(Projected into 2002 Arizona cost-of-living dollars) to LEP students-the
k' Phoenix Advantage Charter School majority of the costs align
Uses Direct Instruction as its immersion model. with the same type of
Reports 209 or 24% enrollment as LEP. services provided to all
Identifies LEP costs related to assistants and testing. "mainstream" students.
Most incremental costs
k' Glendale Union High School District relate to reduced class size,
Applies English immersion in language arts courses. classroom teachers' aides,
Reports 648 or 5% participate in the LEP program. summer school programs
Incremental costs identified in 8 program elements. and a few other elements.
Projected 2002 incremental cost per LEP student $1.023.02
k' Bethlehem Area School District Many districts report that
English immersion throughout district K-5. costs related to teachers
Reports 760 or 10.4% LEP student enrollment. and providing the majority
Incurs incremental LEP costs in 7 areas. of services for LEP
students is not unlike
/ Houston RITE Program providing services for
Privately funded reading and language p r o m "mainstream" students.
Targets under-performing Pre-K through 2"d graders. For example, two of the
In 20 schools serving 5,300 chldren. programs reviewed, the
Projected 2002 RITE program costs per child Bethlehem and Glendale
/ Seattle Public Schools Bilingual Orientation Centers districts, generally provide
Sheltered immersion program for LEP "beginners." services in a similar
5 bilingual centers & 1 family center serve = 450 students. manner targeting English
Reports incremental K-12 LEP costs in 7 areas. Acquisition services
through the language arts
programs and
mainstreaminp-, the students
for the remainder of the day. These English Acquisition language arts programs are
taught in lieu of "mainstream" courses and electives and typically consume most of the
students' day. As such, a majority of LEP students' instruction is provided within the
structure allowed for delivering all educational services. In another example, the Seattle
1-6 sjobergevashenk
BOCs and Phoenix Advantage "shelteryyth eir "beginner" students in classes attended
only by LEP students-again, the majority of the classroom costs of these offerings
replace the costs that the district would normally incur to educate these pupils.
Of the selected districts and charter school reviewed, one incremental cost element relates
to reduced class sizes for LEP students. At the Glendale district, class sizes for
"beginner" LEP students averaged about 3 1 percent smaller than the average mainstream
classes for the 1999-2000 school year. Bethlehem approaches class size from another
perspective. The district reduces the size of all classes in a school by about 17 percent
when it is determined to be "high or medium impactyy-meaning the number of LEP
students in the school exceeds approximately 12 percent of total student enrollment for
the 2000-2001 school year. Seattle BOC, Phoenix Advantage, and Houston RITE
programs do not reduce their class sizes even for those groups considered beginners. In
fact, Phoenix Advantage and Houston RITE take a more global approach to teaching
LEP students and apply the same teaching techniques for all children and do not reduce
class sizes.
English Acquisition programs commonly provide classroom aides to assist LEP students;
these costs are easiest to identifjr. While several of the programs devote at least one aide
for each English Acquisition classroom finding that they provide essential assistance to
the teachers and students, it is important to note, however, that some districts and schools
provide classroom aides (available to assist all children) as part of their core method of
providing regular educational services. For example, Phoenix Advantage's Direct
Instruction program includes an aide in every classroom in kindergarten and first grade
and an aide per grade level in others as an essential element for delivering the educational
program. Further, the RITE program is premised upon having "trainers" available daily
to assist classroom teachers as well as the students participating in their reading program.
Overall, we found the costs of providing these English Acquisition programs vary widely.
Specifically, both Glendale and Bethlehem appear to have comprehensive, school-wide
English Immersion programs and currently incur incremental costs of $983 and $1,056
per LEP student respectively. Although Phoenix Advantage and Houston's RITE
program both employ Direct Instruction programs, only Phoenix Advantage program
applies this approach to its full-scope educational program. Our review reveals that
Phoenix Advantage incurs only two moderate incremental costs translating to nearly
$185 per LEP student. Houston RITE'S program, primarily a reading and language
program targeted at pre-kindergarten though grade 2 disadvantaged children, costs the
private, nonprofit organization sponsor about $1.3 million per year or approximately
$238 per student served. Finally, the Seattle Bilingual Orientation Centers, that employ
sheltered immersion techniques, incur costs of more than $3,000 per LEP student.
sjobergevashenk 1-7
Scope and Methodology
In February 2001, our firm, Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, LLC, contracted with the
Arizona Department of Education (ADE) to perform an independent cost study of
Arizona's English Acquisition programs provided by district schools and charter schools
throughout the state. As former leaders of the California State Auditor's Office, we are
nationally recognized for providing credible, unbiased, and accurate evaluations, reviews,
and assessments. For this cost study, the ADE specified four distinct phases that included
program and cost elements related to various educational approaches to delivering
English Acquisition services.
For this part, Phase I of the cost study, the ADE asked us to determine the annual cost per
pupil for various elements of several model Structured English Immersion and Sheltered
English Immersion programs selected by the department in consultation with another
firm. While the ADE separately contracted with another firm to identify and provide a
qualitative description of various components of these programs, we were tasked with
obtaining the cost data for each component and projecting that cost into fiscal year 2002
dollars. Specifically, we were asked to determine the component cost for the following
schools and programs selected by the department:
Phoenix Advantage Charter School-Phoenix, Arizona
Glendale High School, Glendale Union High School District-Glendale, Arizona
Thunderbird High School, Glendale Union High School District-Glendale, Arizona
Bethlehem Area School District-Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Rodeo Institute for Teacher Excellence (RITE) program, Houston Independent
School District-Houston, Texas
Seattle Public Schools' Bilingual Orientation Centers-Seattle, Washngton
Prior to obtaining cost data, we researched each program and conducted interviews with
ADE officials, key district and selected charter school officials, and crucial program staff
and language coordinators to garner a high-level understanding of the individual
programs offered such as a description of students served, the method in which the
program is rolled out, and the types of materials, textbooks or manipulatives used in the
program.
To identify the availability of reliable cost data within the time allotted, we reviewed on-line
databases, conducted research, collected statistics, and obtained other informational
and fiscal documents. However, we found that available cost data has several limitations.
For instance, some of the immersion programs did not separately track the incremental
costs associated with serving limited English proficient students and, thus, were able to
only provide estimates of their incremental costs. Although we provided guidance to the
schools and programs gathering related estimated costs, we could not verify the
underlying cost data. Further, due to extreme time constraints established by the ADE
and that four of the selected programs are out of state or run by private entities, we were
unable to perform verification procedures and had to rely on the cost data provided.
1-8 sjobergevashenk
Cost Study Results-Phase I.
The ADE specified that Phase I of the English Acquisition Cost Study determine the
annual cost per pupil for various stipulated elements of selected model Structured English
Immersion or Sheltered English Immersion programs projected in fiscal year 2002
dollars. For each of the six selected programs, Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting obtained an
independent understanding of the overall delivery of services to limited English
proficient students that included obtaining philosophical insights into the delivery
approaches, reviewing the various program techniques, and becoming familiar with the
process flow and expectations. Once we obtained this necessary information, we
deciphered the similar and unique elements of each program to assess whether the
components proved incremental to mainstream offerings or actually supplanted or
replaced curriculum offered district- or school-wide.
Selected Model English Immersion Programs
Phoenix Advantage Charter School-Phoenix, Arizona
Glendale High School, Glendale Union High School District-Glendale, Arizona
Thunderbird High School, Glendale Union High School District-Glendale, Arizona
Bethlehem Area School District-Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
RITE Program, Houston Independent School District-Houston, Texas
Seattle Public Schools' Bilingual Orientation Centers-Seattle, Washington
Upon appropriately identifying the key components, we obtained specific cost data fiom
each program. Because of the extremely limited time allotted for conducting this phase
of the cost study, we were unable to independently verify or validate the cost data other
than ascertaining comparable reasonableness and following up with program and fiscal
officials to ensure understanding of our requirements and completeness of the
information they ultimately provided.
The following is our analysis of the selected English Acquisition programs. Although the
ADE identified six model programs, we convey the results of our review in terms of five
programs; we combined our analysis of Glendale High School and Thunderbird High
School into a single discussion addressing the Glendale Union High School District's
program because it delivers its English Acquisition program on a district-wide basis. For
each of the five programs reviewed, we provide a detailed discussion about the key
elements, a cost worksheet delineating the various incremental costs, and, finally, we
present a per pupil cost calculation for the individual English Acquisition programs.
sjobergevashenk 1-9
1-10 sjobergevashenk
Phoenix Advantage Charter School - Phoenix, Arizona
English Acquisition Program Element Cost Analysis
Background
Opening its Arizona campus for the school year 1997-98, Phoenix Advantage Charter
School is one of 15 schools in eight states managed by Advantage Schools, Inc., a
national education management company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. As a
charter school, Phoenix Advantage's kindergarten though grade 8 elementary school
technically has no district boundaries and may serve any child wishing to attend. During
the 1999-2000 school year, it reported enrollment of approximately 856 children but has
since grown to approximately 1,030 students for the 2000-2001 year. The school is
funded with Arizona state funds and received approximately $3.8 million from the state
during the 1999-2000 school year.
According to Advantage Schools, Inc., their mission is "to create a new generation of
world-class urban public schools that will enable all children-regardless of
socioeconomic background or prior academic performance-to reach the heights of
academic achevement." Like the other Advantage Schools, Phoenix Advantage employs
a program of Direct Instruction that originated in the early 1970s as one of the several
educational philosophies tested in Project Follow-Through. This national educational
experiment involved over 10,000 low-income students in 180 communities across the
country.
Phoenix Advantage's Direct Instruction is premised upon the following key elements:
/' Placement of students in small instructional groups based upon academic
skills. These skill groups are generally within appropriate grade levels and
children may work in different groups for each subject if their skill levels
vary-
/' Explicit, teacher-led lessons. Each module of coursework is scripted and
teachers deliver the materials in a specified manner. Lessons involve group
chanting, individual response and repetition.
/' The group advances to the next level only when 90 percent of the children
pass the lesson examinations with a 90 percent score. The remaining 10
percent receive remedial instruction to enable them to keep up with their
groups. The program's frequent testing provides immediate feedback to
teachers to allow them to determine whether a pupil is appropriately placed in
his or her skill group.
sjobergevashenk 1-1 1
Phoenix Advantage tests all students prior to placement in the school. English
proficiency is an element of placement, but affects the assignment to a skill group rather
than the mode of educational delivery. Phoenix Advantage officials state that
approximately 54 percent of the student body is considered limited English speakers and
nearly 78 percent qualify for free or reduced cost meals and, thus, may be fiom
disadvantaged families. However, in information submitted to the Arizona Department
of Education as part of the annual "Arizona's Language Census and Program" database,
the school reports only 209 LEP students in the 1999-2000 school year comprising 24
percent of enrollment.
The school considers its limited English-speaking program to be "Structured Immersion"
and, indicates that every class of 30 children includes 10 to 20 English learners. All
kindergartners and first graders are placed into mainstream classes regardless of English
proficiency, as the school believes the Direct Instruction program is particularly suited to
English acquisition. However, due to many factors, kindergarten usually has a smaller
class size than other grades at 25 children per class.
Only those children possessing extremely limited English proficiency are placed in two
specialized "non-graded" or "multi-graded'' English Acquisition classes--one for grades
2,3, and 4 and another for grades 5,6, 7, and 8. Identical curriculum is presented and
taught to these children as in regular classes, just at a much slower pace. It is the school's
philosophy that limited English speaking children will succeed within the program and
will progress as they master each level-just as with native language speakers. Phoenix
Advantage officials indicate that most if not all children exit the English acquisition
groups within one year and are fully integrated into the mainstream program.
Program Components Related to English Acquisition
Phoenix Advantage officials believe that English acquisition is an imbedded function of
its curriculum and find that the design and philosophy of Direct Instruction is in itself a
process to become proficient in English regardless of whether it is a second language.
Therefore, only a few components can be identified as unique to limited English
proficient students. We identified certain important aspects of the school's program for
consideration; however, many aspects do not have incremental costs related to teaching
limited English speaking chldren.
Phoenix Advantage received approximately $3.8 million in base school support and
additional assistance funding fiom the ADE. With enrollment for the 1999-2000 school
year at 856, this amount equates to approximately $4,440 in state funding per student.
Although Advantage receives additional state funding through state formulas for add-ons
and certain special education categories, it did not report its LEP student count to the
ADE--charter schools like other public schools are eligible for additional state funding
for LEP students-and, thus, did not receive additional state LEP funding.
1-12 sjobergevashenk
Our review indicates that the program at Phoenix Advantage has few incremental costs
attributable to specialized approaches for LEP students. In particular, we identified two
elements attributable to instructing these children. The more significant element is the
commitment of two teacher assistants to the two beginner English Acquisition classes.
Unlike Phoenix Advantage's normal staffing formula for grades 2 through 8 of
committing one dedicated teacher to each classroom and one teacher assistant to each
grade level, the two beginner English Acquisition classes have both a teacher and an
assistant in each class. A second, fairly minor cost element relates to conducting
language testing twice yearly.
The following discussion details the key program components of the Phoenix
Advantage's educational approach and is followed by a cost worksheet that details the
elements highlighted for this study.
LEP Classrooms. The school shelters students with extremely limited English
proficiency in two multi-graded classrooms for their first year at the school.
Specifically, the school has one class for grades 2,3, and 4 and a second class
serving grades 5,6, 7 and 8. Approximately 30 students are placed with one
teacher in each of these classes-similar to other class sizes. The curriculum of
these classes mirror that taught in non-sheltered classes; however, the pace is
slower to allow children to grasp English skills. Children remain in these classes
typically one year or less.
2. Reduced Class Size. Phoenix Advantage does not utilize the traditional concept
of reduced class sizes. Rather, while some lessons are taught class-wide, others
are taught in small groups with the assistance of the grade's classroom aide. For
example, one group may work with the teacher while another works with the aide
and a third works independently. Additionally, the program allots time for
attention at the individual level as well.
3. LEP Classroom Aides. We identified one incremental cost related to this
element--devoting two aides to two classrooms. Specifically, each grade is
assigned a classroom aide who teaches small groups and individuals in concert
with the classroom teacher. Kindergarten and first grade have one aide per
classroom. Similarly, the two English Acquisition beginner programs also have
one dedicated aide per classroom. All other classes have one aide per grade.
Aides receive Direct Instruction training and must follow the protocols and
scripts established for each lesson. Phoenix Advantage does not provide
additional aides or tutors to LEP students; rather, any child needing remediation
receives the appropriate additional attention.
4. Administrative Staff. On campus, Phoenix Advantage has only a limited
number of administrators and none that are solely committed to English
acquisition services. The Boston headquarters' office conducts the majority of
business-related administrative functions.
sjobergevashenk 1- 13
5. Summer Program. The Phoenix Advantage School embraces an extended
school year-200 days as opposed to the usual 175 days of other Arizona public
schools. Additionally, the school day is longer, running from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. Because Advantage's school year runs about one month longer, no summer
school is offered.
6. Staff Training and Development. Professional development for all teachers
and aides includes ten days of training at the beginning of the school year and an
additional five days during the year. The school does not offer additional
training specific to English Acquisition programs.
7. Textbooks. Direct Instruction programs are premised on specific textbooks and
materials as well as scripted lessons. Phoenix Advantage indicated that
beginning LEP students may use a different Direct Instruction reading text at
times but these would supplant regular text materials.
8. Manipulatives, Supplies, Teaching Tools. Direct Instruction has stringent
protocols and materials for use in the classroom for all students. The school did
not identify additional tools for instructing LEP students.
9. Stipends, Bonuses, and Special Pay. All teachers must have a college degree
but Phoenix Advantage does not require teacher certifications. Additionally,
there is no financial incentive to have a bilingual endorsement or an ESL
endorsement; however, Advantage does look for bilingual teachers and aides.
Compensation is tied to performance and the school reports that outstanding
teachers may earn up to 9 or 10 percent in annual salary increases.
10. Teacher Recruiting. and Retention. Phoenix Advantage, like other public
schools, finds there is a shortage of qualified individuals to be teachers.
11. Assessments, Reassessments, and Reclassification. Advantage tests students in
a variety of ways throughout the year to determine their scholastic growth.
Twice yearly, students take the oral portion of the Idea Proficiency Test that
assists teachers and administrators in assessing students' language proficiency.
An individual comes in four days per year and conducts the testing. The school
does not apply the reclassification concept except for assessing readiness to move
fiom the two English acquisition classrooms-which is typically determined by
skill mastery within the Direct Instruction concept.
12. Other Costs. Phoenix Advantage and Advantage Schools report no additional
costs for serving LEP students.
1-14 sjobergevashenk
Phoenix Advantage Charter School
English Acquisition Program-Kindergarten through Grade 8
Cost Worksheet
1999-2000 School Year
Worksheet 1.
t I I I
1.
2.
3.
4.
LEP Classrooms (incremental costs of
classes or teachers)
5.
Reduced Class Size
LEP Classroom Aides
Administrative Staff
6.
7.
None identified
Summer Program
Manipulatives, Materials, Supplies,
-0-
Not applicable
2 teacher assistants for
LEP classes
No incremental costs
identified
Staff Training and Development
Textbooks
None identified related
to English Acquisition
8.
-0-
$38,270
-0-
Not applicable
None directly related to
9.
Assessments, Reassessments, and
1 1. Reclassification I I
-0-
English Acquisition
programs
No incremental costs
identified
Tools
10.
Twice yearly language
assessments.
-0-
-0-
Stipends, Bonuses, and Special Pay
programs
Teacher Recruiting and Retention
sjobergevashenk 1-15
-0-
Not applicable
12.
-0-
None identified -0-
Other Costs
Total Incremental Program Cost
None identified -0-
$38,590
Phoenix Advantage Charter School
English Acquisition Program-Kindergarten thought Grade 8
1999-2000 School Year
Calculation of Cost Per Student
Incremental costs incurred by school for 1999-2000 $38,590
Total LEP students enrolled per 1999-2000 ALCAP 209
Total Incremental Cost per LEP Student $ 184.64
Calculation of Cost Per Student
Projection in Fiscal Year 2002 Arizona cost of living dollars1
Incremental cost of the program per LEP student $184.64
Projection of per student cost (calculated for 2 years) $192.10
Fiscal Year 2002 Arizona cost of living factor is estimated at 2 percent per year. This mirrors the factor
included in the text of Proposition 301, passed by Arizona voters in November 2000, and in Arizona statute
for basic state aid.
I- 16 sjobergevashenk
Glendale Union Hi-a h School District-Phoenix, Arizona
English Acquisition Program Element Cost Analysis
(Cost Data Applicable to Both Glendale High School and Thunderbird High School)
Background
Glendale Union High School District serves the greater Phoenix and Glendale areas. As
Arizona's second largest high school district, its nine public high schools and one
alternative school serve grade 9 through 12 students. The Glendale district "is committed
to providing a quality educational experience for all students.. .(and give them) the
opportunity to prepare them to become productive, responsible, and culturally enriched
world citizens." Its learning system is defined by continuous improvement and
educational accountability and the district cites several factors demonstrating its success:
three-quarters of its graduates go on to higher education; its dropout rate is nearly four
percent below statewide rates; and students scored above national and state average
scores for the Stanford 9 and Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) tests.
Approximately 880, or 6.9 percent, of the 12,800 students enrolled at the district during
the 1999-2000 school year were classified as limited English proficient. The district's
English as a Second Language (ESL) program is voluntary and 648 students participated
during the year. Glendale characterizes its ESL program as Structured Immersion as the
ESL students fully participate in the mainstream curriculum and all courses are taught in
English. The Glendale philosophy is to fully involve English learners into all educational
and social aspects of the campus so to create a belief of success and belonging. Because
only six of the nine high school campuses provide ESL programs, the district transports
those limited English speaking students whose neighborhood school does not provide
these services to schools within the district that do offer ESL classes. The new school
becomes the student's "home" campus.
The district provides the majority of ESL services within its language arts programs.
English learners are placed by proficiency into comprehensive language arts classes that
deliver grade-level material over several periods, but these students attend mainstream
classes for other core subjects such as math, science, history and physical education.
Those students with extremely limited English proficiency, considered beginners, take
language arts (including reading, writing, speaking and listening) for three to four class
hours during each day; the extra time committed to these courses is in lieu of elective
courses offered in the mainstream curriculum. As students' proficiency increases, they
may move up to intermediate or advanced levels of the ESL language arts; these courses
extend for two class hours daily.
Class sizes are reduced in the beginning level ESL language classes and teachers
instructing within the program have earned either a full or provisional bilingual or ESL
endorsement. Moreover, in addition to the endorsed ESL teacher, all three levels have
classroom aides. The ESL program also offers additional academic support through ESL
sjobergevashenk 1- 17
Resource, a class offering assistance in "mainstream" course-work, teaching school and
social protocols, and other information and mentoring intended to help students in their
academic and social lives. Additionally, ESL Resource also provides access to
computers and other tools. ESL Resource is offered within some ESL programs in the
district for one period a day.
An integral part of the district's ESL phlosophy includes the responsibility for all
teachers and students in the success of each student. The district provides ESL-related
in-service training for teachers as part of their on-going professional development
package. Additionally, all new teachers attend a three-year series of training courses that
integrate issues related to instructing limited English proficient students.
All students, regardless of language proficiency, economic status, or grade point average
are encouraged to attend Advanced Placement, "AP" classes, preparing children for
college. According to the district, whle typically only three percent ofhigh schoolers
take AP classes, approximately 20 percent of district students attend these classes.
Moreover, the district pays the fee for students to take the related examinations for
college credit. ESL students are encouraged to attend s m e r school, although only a
few classes, such as pre-algebra, are targeted toward those individuals.
Key Program Components
The Glendale Union High School District's Structured Immersion approach to educate
limited English proficient students allows it to generally absorb the ESL program
components into its overall delivery of services. However, as a result of our review and
follow-up work with the district, we identified 12 key components unique to the ESL
program. Certain of these elements supplant curriculum offerings while others are
supplemental to the general educational program provided to all Glendale students. For
those elements determined to be incremental, the district has provided estimated costs for
providing those services.
Through its six-campus and district level services, Glendale spent approximately
$952,000 during the 1999-2000 school year to deliver its ESL program. This comprises
approximately 1.4 percent of its $67.6 million annual budget. We estimate that these
1999-2000 costs translate to approximately $983.30 per participating student in the ESL
program.
The following discussion details the key program elements of Glendale's ESL approach
and is followed by a cost worksheet that provides a breakdown of the estimated costs of
the individual components.
1. ESL Classroom Services. Enrollment in the program is voluntary and placement
is based on an assessment of English proficiency, an interview, and an academic
evaluation. Students enter the program at one of three levels and exit is
1-18 sjobergevashenk
determined by reassessment of proficiency. The ESL program is provided
primarily through language arts programs as follows:
/' Beginning Level-extremely limited English proficiency. Offerings are
for three to four periods per day and include course work at grade level.
Students take ESL Speaking and Listening; ESL Reading; and ESL
Writing. If a fourth period is appropriate (or available at that school), ESL
Resource provides students with academic support for mainstream classes
and other social and life-skill information.
/' Intermediate Level-increasing English proficiency. The ESL program
covers two periods per day and includes ESL English 1-2 and ESL
Reading 1-2.
/' Advanced Level-reaching English proficiency. The advanced level ESL
program is also offered for two periods daily providing ESL English 3-4
and ESL Reading.
The district believes there are no incremental costs related to this element of the
ESL program. Each high school student attends school for a required number of
hours with schools providing instruction for core courses and allowing for
discretionary electives. For beginning level ESL students, their electives are
consumed by the three to four periods of language arts. In the same regard,
intermediate and advanced level students consume one of their elective periods to
take the second hour of ESL instruction. Typically, like mainstream programs,
each ESL course is conducted by a teacher specializing in the subject.
2. Reduced Class Size. The average mainstream class size in the Glendale district
is approximately 26 students. The district allows a smaller class size for the
beginning level ESL program with 15 students comprising the ideal class size.
Once the numbers in the classes rise to about 20, the school and district endeavors
to open an additional section. During the 1999-2000 school year, the average
beginning level class size was 18 students.
3. ESL Classroom Aides. Classroom aides are assigned to ESL courses to provide
individual assistance to students under the supervision of the teacher. Typically,
beginning level classes have one teacher and two classroom aides while
intermediate and advanced classrooms have only one aide.
4. Administrative Staff. The district employs a district ESL Language Coordinator
who devotes approximately 60 percent of her time to the ESL program.
Additionally, each school has a designated ESL teacher as a department chair.
School deans, counselors and principals also devote a small proportion of their
time to the program. Administrative staff assist in testing, assessments,
reassessments and program development.
sjobergevashenk 1-19
5. Summer Program. District schools offer summer programs for all students. A
few of the classes directly target ESL students offering them compensatory
instruction or affording a jump-start on algebra-according to the district some of
these summertime offerings are considered incremental costs related to the ESL
program. Costs are also incurred for transporting some of the ESL students to the
campuses offering the summer programs.
6. Staff Training and Development. Glendale's core philosophy includes
investing in its staff resources through training and development. For example,
all new teachers attend extensive training over their first three years of service.
Additionally, each new teacher is assigned a mentor. All teaching staff is
afforded training and development opportunities each year-district officials
indicate that teachers tend to go to training directly related to their subject matter.
Thus, ESL teachers attend courses dealing with English acquisition and math
teachers attend math development opportunities. However, the district does
provide some additional ESL-related training for all teachers that is considered a
cost to its ESL program.
7. Textbooks. ESL courses use the same or very similar textbooks to those used in
mainstream classes. Because all students require textbooks and the cuniculurn is
virtually identical, the district believes it does not incur any additional textbook
costs related to ESL programs.
8. Manipulatives, Materials, Supplies, and Tools. All teachers are allowed a
modest budget to obtain tools for assisting in delivering instruction, but the
district does not provide additional amounts for ESL classes. However, the
district utilizes two tools to assist in communicating with parents and families.
First, it contracts for a "language line" which is a telephone translation service
that teachers and administrators can use to converse with non-English speaking
families. Second, it uses a translation service to provide important written
documents in certain key languages.
9. Stipends, Bonuses, and Special Pav. Many instructors teaching ESL classes
have ESL endorsements or provisional endorsements. However, the district does
not offer additional compensation of any kind for attaining or holding these
credentials.
10. Teacher Recruiting and Retention. Like many districts nationwide, Glendale
faces a teacher shortage in all disciplines. Its primary recruiting tool is the
reputation of the district and the treatment and support of its faculty.
1-20 sjobergevashenk
11. Assessments, Reassessments, and Reclassification. The district purchases
testing materials and uses administrators and ESL teachers to conduct initial
assessments prior to placement, reassess at least annually, and administer
reclassification tests when appropriate. Some of the costs of conducting these
services are absorbed into the salaries of teachers, language coordinators, and
other administrative staff; yet other testing services generate additional expenses.
12. Transportation. Because only six of the nine high school campuses provide ESL
programs, the district transports those limited English-speaking students whose
neighborhood school does not provide these service to the six schools providing
ESL services. Thus, the district incurs an incremental cost of transportation
between the initial neighborhood school and the new "home" school.
sjobergevashenk 1-21
Glendale Union High School District
English Acquisition Program - ESL
Cost Worksheet
1999-2000 School Year
Worksheet 2.
I
I 1. 1 ESL Classroom Services (incremental
costs of ESL classes or teachers)
1 2. / Reduced Class size2
3. ESL Classroom Aides
Administrative Staff (counselors, deans,
4. principals, language coordinators)
5. Summer Program
1 6. 1 Staff Training and Development
1 8. / Manipulatives, Materials, Supplies, Tools
9. Teacher Stipends, Bonuses, Special Pay
I I Assessments, Reassessments, and
10. Teacher Recruiting and Retention
1 12. 1 Other Costs: Trans~ortation
- 11 .
Total Incremental Program Cost
Reclassification
None identified -0-
Reduced to 18 for
beginning level $1 09,027
Hourly employees $233,257
Allocated by time I
committed to program $229,767
ESL targeted classes
and trans~ortation I $ 15.369
Includes ESL training
offered to all teachers 1 $7.211 1 No additional costs -0-
Language line,
document translation 1 $10.629
Not applicable -0-
Calculated using the ratio of 8/26=3 1% (reduced class average 18; mainstream class 26) multiplied by the number of
Full-time equivalent ESL teachers in reduced size classrooms ( 7.2 FTE s) multiplied by the average annual teacher
salary and benefits of $48,847. The resulting calculated amount is $109,026.5 1.
Not applicable
Incremental assistance
Transportation from
areas without ESL
classes
1-22 sjobergevashenk
-0-
$6,918
$25.000
Glendale Union High School District
English Acquisition Program - ESL
1999-2000 School Year
Calculation of Cost Per Student
Incremental costs incurred by district for 1999-2000 $637,178
Total LEP students enrolled in ESL on 1999-2000 ALCAP 648
Total Incremental Cost Per Student m
Calculation of Cost Per Student
Projection in 2002 Arizona cost of living dollars3
Incremental cost of the program per LEP student m
Projection of per student cost (calculated for 2 years) m
Fiscal Year 2002 Arizona cost of living factor is estimated at 2 percent per year. This mirrors the factor
included in the text of Proposition 301, passed by Arizona voters in November 2000, and in Arizona statute
for basic state aid.
sjobergevashenk 1-23
1-24 sjobergevashenk
Bethlehem Area School District-Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania
English Acquisition Program Element Cost Analysis
Background
In February 1993, the Bethlehem Area School District (district) of eastern Pennsylvania
established a new program for limited English proficient students (LEP) then dubbed
"Ticket for Tomorrow." According to the district, this English Acquisition Program's
goal "is to have all LEP students become fluent in English in the shortest amount of time
so they may experience maximum success in school."
The 14,162-student district serves all grade levels, kindergarten through Grade 12;
however, this cost study reviewed the English Acquisition Program for the elementary
grades kindergarten through Grade 5. Currently, its 16 elementary schools have a total
student population of approximately 7,300 children, with 760 enrolled as LEP. Eighty-six
percent of the LEP students speak Spanish with primarily Puerto Rican heritages, but
some originated from Columbia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico. Students have
other first languages as well including Chnese, Portuguese, Greek, Arabic, Turkish,
Vietnamese, French, Russian, Croatian and at least seven others.
The district has taken a global approach to addressing the needs of LEP students such as
all children may attend their home schools. Depending upon the concentration of
attending LEP students, each school is assessed as "high, medium, or low impact."
Schools with 30 to 40 percent or more non-English proficient students are considered
high impact, those with concentrations of 12 to 30 percent LEP students are medium, and
schools with fewer are considered low impact. The "impact" assessment affords high to
medium impact schools reduced size for all classes-benefiting all children in those
schools. Moreover, the district estimates that at least 80 percent of the children attending
high and medium impact schools qualify for fi-ee or reduced cost meals, and, thus, are
likely to be fi-om disadvantaged families.
Bethlehem defines its LEP program as Structured English Immersion where all children
are placed into mainstream classes. However, a language assessment determines each
individual's English skill level-beginning, intermediate, and advanced and these
children receive specialized language arts instruction. English for Speakers of Other
Languages (ESOL) teachers provide specialized English Acquisition services within
these skill levels by grade. Twice yearly the district formally reassess each child's
English language proficiency, in reading, oral language, and writing. Generally, the
district estimates that children entering the program with little or no English proficiency
successfully exit within three or four years.
sjobergevashenk 1-25
A variety of program components are employed to serve limited language speaking
students and families. In addition to the instructional programs, the district employs
many bilingual faculty and staff to communicate both orally and in writing with families.
Program Components Related to English Acquisition
As a result of our survey and follow-up work with the district, we identified several key
components of the district's English Acquisition program. We find that many of these
elements supplement rather than supplant the fundamental educational offerings and
programs provided to the children of the Bethlehem area. For each of these components,
the district has provided data for us to estimate the incremental costs of delivering these
services.
Specifically, our review identified approximately $802,000 of LEP related incremental
costs for the kindergarten through grade 5 programs for the 2000-2001 school year. This
amount comprises approximately 1.4 percent of the estimated $56.2 million of state funds
budgeted for its elementary schools for the current year, and translates to a cost of
approximately $1,055.68 per pupil participating in the program.
The following discussion details the key program elements of Bethlehem's ESL approach
and is followed by a cost worksheet that provides a breakdown of the estimated costs of
the individual components.
1. LEP Teaching Services. Each LEP student is assessed and assigned to a
language competency level. In schools with LEP enrollment greater than
approximately 12 percent (high to medium impact schools), students receive LEP
sessions from ESOL teachers as follows:
5' Beginner-75 minutes daily
5' Intermediate45 minutes three or more times weekly
/ Advanced-Support based upon their individual needs
ESOL teachers deliver lessons either in small groups within the classrooms or in
pullout sessions. At schools with fewer LEP students (low impact), itinerant
ESOL teachers conduct sessions for small groups of LEP students, two to four
times weekly. The district employs 18 hll-time ESOL teachers who work with
groups ranging from 3 to 14 students at a time.
2. Reduced Class Sizes. Depending upon the concentration of LEP students in a
school, the district allows for smaller class sizes. Mainstream elementary school
classes in the district average approximately 24 but may be reduced to
approximately 20 when the LEP enrollment classifies the school as hgh or
medium impact. Because reduced class sizes benefit all children attending the
high and medium impact schools and relate to the delivery of the entire
1-26 sjobergevashenk
curriculum, we do not consider class size reduction as an incremental cost of the
English acquisition program.
3. Second Langua~eG uides. The district employs second language guides at the
low impact schools that do not provide full-time LEP services. These guides,
under the supervision of ESOL teachers, assist LEP students in small groups and
on a one-to-one basis. They are paid on an hourly basis and most work
approximately 5 hours per week with "beginner" LEP students.
4. Administrative Staff. Bethlehem Area School District's Center for Language
Assessment employs a full-time administrator to conduct assessment testing for
its LEP students. The budget allotted for the center includes the costs of
purchasing and conducting assessments, reassessments, and reclassification tests.
The English AcquisitionEeading Recovery coordinator commits approximately
half of her time to the LEP program at the elementary level. Moreover, during
the school enrollment months the district employs two additional test
administrators to test and assess approximately 200 LEP students entering the
district. Additionally, the district provides the LEP program with administrative
staff to assist in arranging testing, communicating with parents and families,
assisting in the enrollment processes, and providing support to the LEP
administrators.
5. Summer Program. A four-week, 5-hour summer program designed for LEP
students at the "beginning" level is provided by the district annually and was
attended by approximately 150 children this program year. The district provides
fiee transportation to any children needing assistance to get to the program site.
6. Staff Traininp and Development. The district has a discrete budget for ESOL
teacher in-service training. Much of the teacher and staff training and
development are done after-hours, so the district compensates ESOL teachers for
attending these sessions. Moreover, it also provides for contracting with outside
specialized consultants to come to Bethlehem to deliver English acquisition
professional development sessions. These sessions are offered not only to ESOL
teachers but to all teachers inasmuch as they too are delivering education and are
responsible for the success of the LEP students.
7. Textbooks. At the elementary level, there is no canned curriculum for the LEP
program. The district allots a budget for individual ESOL teachers to purchase
support materials and books needed in their programs.
8. Manipulatives, Supplies, Materials, and Tools. The program uses a variety of
manipulatives, supplies, materials and aids in the classroom and administratively
that are in addition to textbooks. These materials are accounted for within the
LEP budget as materials.
sjobergevashenk 1-27
9. Stipends, Bonuses, Special Pay. The district does not offer stipends, bonuses,
or special pay for ESOL teachers and the State of Pennsylvania does not certify
teachers in ESL or Bilingual education.
10. Teacher Recruiting and Retention. Unlike many areas in the country, the
Bethlehem Area School District has not experienced a shortage in qualified
teachers. In fact, officials believe that because they offer a lvgh quality program
the district has experienced low turnover and has been able to attract and retain
talented teachers and staff.
11. Assessments, Reassessments, and Reclassification. As stated above, the
district employs a full-time individual responsible for testing. Costs for materials
and conducting the tests are reflected in that individual's salary and in materials
and teaching tools.
12. Other Costs: Kindergarten Extra Hour. The district finds the kindergarten
program language rich and does not provide LEP services within the school day.
However, under the state's "Read to Succeed" program, three district schools
receive funding to provide LEP services to small groups of kindergartners for an
hour outside of the school day.
There is one other element that the district English Acquisition administrator believes is
essential to Bethlehem's English Acquisition program's success but is not unique to
limited English proficient students. The district has adopted the Reading Recover*
program for all first graders scoring in the lowest 20 percentile of their class, many of
which are LEP students. This program is offered to small groups of children for 30
minutes daily, for 12 to 20 weeks. Although the district believes that this component is
an important intervention factor for all low-scoring readers and provides an additional
support aspect to LEP services, the estimated $3,000 spent for each child to participate in
the program is not considered a cost of the English Acquisition program. Moreover, the
administrator stated that while the program may appear expensive, most if not all of the
costs are likely to be mitigated because fewer students will be retained in grade, require
special education services, or need long-term remedial classes.
Additionally, some schools receive other state and federal grants such as the 2'lSCt entury
grant, serving low-income or disadvantaged children. These various grants support
programs in which some LEP students would participate, but specifically are not targeted
toward LEP. Therefore these are not considered part of the LEP program, but
nonetheless provide valuable services to these children.
1-28 sjobergevashenk
Bethlehem Area School District
English Acquisition Program
Cost Worksheet-Kindergarten through Grade 5 Only
2000-2001 School Year
Worksheet 3.
1 20 teachers
1. LEP Services (costs of incremental
ESOL instruction)
2.
3.
1 7. 1 Textbooks / Budeet amount5 / $ 3.350 1
Reduced class sizes (per district policy)
4.
5.
6.
Second language guides
Administrative Costs (English
Acquisition administrator, language
assessment tester, summertime language
Not limited to LEP
- -
testers, clerical support)
Summer Program (teachers salary &
transportation costs)
Staff training and development
8.
1 10. 1 Teacher recruiting and retention I Not applicable -0- 1
-0-
Yearly budget
Allocated by time
9.
$25,750
committed to program
$1 7,336-teachers
$7,000-transportation
$3,500-reimbursements4
$3,500-consultant fees
Manipulatives, materials, supplies, tools
$106,155
$24,336
$ 7,000
Teacher stipends, bonuses, special pay
1 1.
Payments to teachers for attending training on their own time.
Allocation related to K-5 of 213 of amount budgeted.
State grant to 3 schools-not part of the cost allocation for the LEP program. However, the district could
not provide the amount of incremental costs of this aspect of its LEP program.
Includes language tests
Budget amount5
12.
sjobergevashenk 1-29
$ 3,015
Not applicable
Assessments, Reassessments, and
Reclassification
-0-
Note: Total does not include all Title I spending amounts.
Other Costs: Kindergarten extra hour6
Total Program Cost
Costs included in
administrative costs -0-
Special grant -0-
$802,320
Bethlehem Area School District
English Acquisition Program
Kindergarten through Grade 5 Only
2000-2001 School Year
Calculation of Cost Per Student
Incremental costs estimated by district for 2000-2001 $802,320
Total LEP students enrolled in K-5 for 2000-2001 760
Total Incremental Cost Per Student m
Calculation of Cost Per Student
Projection in 2002 Arizona cost of living dollars7
Incremental cost of program per LEP student m
Projection of per student cost $1.076.79
7 Fiscal Year 2002 Arizona cost of living factor is estimated at 2 percent per year. This mirrors the factor
included in the text of Proposition 301, passed by Arizona voters in November 2000, and in Arizona statute
for basic state aid.
1-30 sjobergevashenk
Houston Independent School Distrid-Houston, Texas
Rodeo Institute for Teacher Excellence (RITE) Program
Program Element Cost Analysis
Background
In 1997, the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, a non-profit charitable foundation,
established the Rodeo Institute for Teacher Excellence (RITE) with a stated mission "to
provide a solution to the high school dropout rate by ensuring that every child reads at
grade level by the end of first grade." RITE employs a program using Direct Instruction
methodology and practices in the classroom that have been developed over the last 25
years. This method combines vocabulary, language usage, and phonics with a consistent
classroom management system. RITE's goal is "to ensure that at-risk children can read
on grade level by equipping pre-Kindergarten through 2nd grade teachers with a teaching
methodology having a sound history of reaping results." While in most cases, RITE'S
program is delivered at the pre-Kindergarten through grade 2 levels, some students
continue into grade 3. However, once students have completed the set curriculum, they
enter the district's typical reading and language arts programs.
To accomplish its goals, RITE trains, coaches, and mentors public school teachers to
instruct at-risk students to read based on four premises considered essential to the RITE
program success:
/ Teacher leadership rather than seatwork;
/ Clear organization;
/ Step-by-step progression by identifying and celebrating small gains by each
student; and
/ Effective classroom management of people and time.
Teachers lead through direct and immediate feedback fiom the students and organize
their programs through a work ethic centered on the premise that "the teacher is here to
teach and the students are here to learn." The RITE program management philosophy is
that everyone should know the clear expectations for conduct, learning, and
conversations.
Master teacher trainers fi-om RITE provide daily support to the district school teachers
on-site, in the classroom, and guide the teachers to use intensive, personal, and direct
instruction with the students. Additionally, the RITE program uses Direct Instruction
delivery methods combining a phonics-based curriculum, Reading Mastery, a
comprehension based curriculum, Language for Learning, and a specified classroom
management system. As part of a recent annual external evaluation, the Texas Institute
for Measurement Evaluation and Statistics at the University of Houston determined that
this specific phonics and comprehension methodology combined with the RITE's stress
on teacher training, coaching, and mentoring are the keys to the program's success.
sjobergevashenk 1-31
Further, the evaluation cites certain factors indicating program success; for example,
children who begin the RITE program in kindergarten and continue through second grade
perform better than their peers and above national norms by the end of the first grade.
Further, most if not all students, exit the RITE program after 2nd grade.
However, the RITE program is not targeted only toward LEP students, but rather it seeks
to help all at-risk children master reading. Thus, LEP students are treated essentially the
same as native English speakers. Yet, according to one of the RITE master trainers,
teachers realize that LEP students will have greater problems in comprehension activities
and teachers are encouraged to spend more time on vocabulary with this group of
students, to use concrete objects, and employ other typical sheltered English techniques.
RITE staff target schools within the Houston Independent School District (HISD) that
reveal first grade Stanford 9 scores below the 5oth percentile. RITE then requests
permission from the school district to incorporate its curriculum into the targeted school.
Once permission is granted, the program is rolled out school-wide in the specified grade
levels and each chld is individually tested using a grade-appropriate test before the early
intervention program begins. During the program, students are tested both in reading
fluency rate and accuracy every five lessons. After teachers are trained and provide the
phonics-based curriculum, all students are again tested with grade-appropriate tests.
These results are compared with control schools to monitor the effectiveness of the
instruction. Finally, all students are tested in the spring beginning in kindergarten using
the Stanford 9.
HISD, the largest public school system in Texas and the seventh largest in the United
States, first incorporated this teacher training and reading intervention program into some
of its elementary schools (known as RITE schools) beginning in 1997. Currently, the
RITE program has been introduced into 287 classrooms in 20 elementary schools. Of
these 20 schools, 18 schools serve LEP students-with seven schools serving LEP
enrollment of greater than 40 percent. RITE could not provide a breakdown of the
number or the proportion of the 5,300 pre-Kindergarten through 2nd grade RITE
participants that are classified as LEP students. In some schools, the majority of students
speak Spanish as their home language but other schools have students with varying first
languages. Based on data provided by RITE, it will spend approximately $1.3 million to
deliver its program in the 20 HISD schools for the fiscal year 2000-2001. This amount
translates to a cost of $238.28 per at-risk student.
Key Program Components
The RITE Direct Instruction model was developed with the philosophy that it is a process
to become proficient in English-regardless of whether it is a second language.
Therefore, although the entire program is supplementary to the 20 target schools in the
HISD, the RITE program replaces the district's traditional reading and language program
for those grades. Moreover, because the RITE program is a fully funded division of the
Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, it is provided to the HISD at no cost.
1-32 sjobergevashenk
Because the RITE program is managed and funded privately, we did not attempt to
identify any costs that may incur to the district as a result of the program being delivered
in its 287 classrooms in 20 different schools. Therefore, the costs we provide relate to the
non-profit charitable foundation and not to the school district itself.
However, during our interviews and follow-up with the RITE program staff, we
identified certain important aspects of the program for consideration; although these
aspects generate incremental costs, they are not solely related to teaching limited English
speaking children. Rather, they are incremental costs of serving all at-risk children-some
of whom may be classified as LEP students. Additionally, some of these elements,
such as intensive on-site master teachers or trainers to assist classroom teachers,
supplement the fundamental education programs provided to all children in HISD
schools. Yet, other elements, such as the cost of the curriculum materials, replace the
typical educational programs.
These key incremental program components are discussed below. To maintain some
comparability between the RITE program and the other model programs identified for
Phase I of this project, we have attempted to use the same program element
classifications. It is important to note that the elements and costs identified below relate
solely to the RITE program and do not include any costs that may relate to the HISD.
Estimated costs of the individual components are presented in a cost worksheet following
the discussion.
1. RITE Classrooms. District teachers are trained to deliver the RITE program in
their pre-Kindergarten to grade 2 classrooms. Other than the costs identified in
item 3 below, the RITE program does not incur any additional costs related to
these classroom teachers or their facilities.
2. Reduced Class Size. The RITE program does not require a smaller-than-standard
class size for the participating HISD schools. However, some HISD
schools-both RITE and mainstream-may use Class Size Reduction Teachers
who "pull-out" the under-performing students (not restricted to LEP students) for
remedial instruction. These groups include up to 6 children and classes last about
45 minutes. The program is unrelated to RITE and the costs do not accrue to the
RITE program.
3. RITE InstructorITrainer (On-Site Assistant) Salaries. RITE master teacher
trainers provide intensive training and daily one-on-one teacher support in the
classroom. Moreover, the program requires that RITE trainers closely monitor
teacher performance and student progress through their classroom visits and by
weekly assessments.
4. Administrative Staff. We did not determine any costs incurred by the HISD
related to this program. RITE costs are reflected in the other program elements.
sjobergevashenk 1-33
5. Summer Programs. None provided under this program.
6. District Teacher Training and Development. Professional development is
extensive in the RITE program. Initial introduction into the program techniques
is provided during a weeklong summer institute, teaming teacher experts with
district teachers who will implement the program in the next school year.
Ongoing district teacher development occurs at a Saturday institute in the fall,
and during monthly, two-hour training sessions.
At each of the development sessions, district teachers learn techniques and the
subtleties of procedures such as error correction and maintaining a high success
rate. Participants also learn about program extensions such as teaching phonemic
sound blending skills. Content for the monthly sessions evolves fiom problems
identified by the trainers during their classroom observations and issues raised by
the district teachers in their debriefing with RITE trainers. The costs related to
RITE staff for this component are included in item 3 above.
7. Textbooks. All RITE teachers use a phonics-based reading curriculum using
Reading Mastery and Language for Learning.
8. Manipulatives, Materials, Supplies, and Tools. Other than the text-related
materials identified above, no other specific manipulatives, supplies or tools were
identified by RITE.
9. District Teacher Stipends. As described in item 6 above, district teachers
attend a number of training and development classes taught by RITE staff.
Because district teachers attend these offerings on their own time, RITE pays
them a stipend for attending.
10. Teacher Recruiting and Training. This element is not applicable to the RITE
program discussion.
11. Assessments, Reassessments, and Reclassification. Children participating in
the RITE program are evaluated and tested frequently; however, unlike most of
the other programs reviewed as part of the ADEYs English Acquisition Cost
Study, this program does not rely on language proficiency assessments,
reassessments, or reclassification. Rather, it looks to mastery of the program's
elements to advance the children to the next level.
12. Other Costs: Evaluations. RITE'S reported business philosophy is that in order
to quantifL the impact of its program, data must be accurately and objectively
gathered. Thus, on an annual basis, the RITE program pays the University of
Houston's Texas Institute for Measurement Evaluation and Statistics to measure
the value of the RITE program using pre and post-intervention program data.
1-34 sjobergevashenk
Houston Independent School District
RITE Program
Cost Worksheet - Pre-Kindergarten Through Grade 2 Only
2000-2001 School Year
Worksheet 4.
1.
2.
RITE Classrooms
3.
Reduced Class Size
4.
None identified
RITE Instructors/Trainers (on-site
assistants)
5.
-0-
Not applicable
District teacher support
& onsite assistant. 1 $612.900
Administrative Staff
6.
-0-
Summer Program
District Teacher Training and
Develo~ment
Costs included in
element 9
Not applicable
-0-
7.
-0-
Not applicable
8.
-0-
Textbooks
9.
Manipulatives, Materials, Supplies,
Tools
10.
Phonics-based
District Teacher Stipends
1 1.
12.
sjobergevashenk 1-35
$400,000
None identified
Includes teacher stipend
Teacher recruiting and retention
Total RITE Program Cost
-0-
for attending training
Assessments, Reassessments, and
Reclassification
Other Costs: Program evaluation
$1,262,900
$125,000
Not applicable -0-
Not applicable
Annual evaluation by an
independent institute on
RITE'S effectiveness
-0-
$125,000
Houston Independent School District
RITE Program
Cost Worksheet - Pre-Kindergarten Through Grade 2 Only
2000-2001 School Year
Calculation of RITE'S Cost Per Student
Incremental costs estimated by RITE for 2000-2001 $1,262,900
Total students enrolled in RlTE Program 5,300
Total Program Cost per Student !$ 238.28
Calculation of Cost Per Student
Projection in 2002 Arizona cost of living dollars8
Total RITE Program Cost per Student $238.28
Projection of per student cost $243.05
Fiscal Year 2002 Arizona cost of living factor is estimated at 2 percent per year. This mirrors the factor
included in the text of Proposition 30 1, passed by Arizona voters in November 2000, and in Arizona statute
for basic state aid.
1-36 sjobergevashenk
Seattle Public Schools' Bilingual Orientation Centers-
Seattle, Washinaton
English Acquisition Program Element Cost Analysis
Background
With nearly 45,000 students--of whom over 5,600, or 12 percent are participating LEP
students, the Seattle Public Schools oversees 60 elementary schools, 10 middle schools,
and 10 high schools. According to the district, the majority of its LEP students speak
Spanish as their primary language; however, the district's children bring more than 100
other major languages to school. In addition to English as a Second Language (ESL)
programs offered by the individual district schools, the district has taken a global
approach to addressing some of the needs of its LEP students. Specifically, the Seattle
district operates a Bilingual Family Center and five Bilingual Orientation Centers.
Upon entering the district, all non-native English speakers must register at the Bilingual
Family Center. Staffed with three full-time and six part-time teachers, staff at the center
are responsible for assessing English proficiency, counseling the students and their
families, and providing other services such as ensuring that immunizations are current.
Limited English speaking children take tests to determine their level of language
proficiency. If a student scores 50 or less on tests, the district recommends that the
student participate in one of the five district-wide Bilingual Orientation Centers (B0C)-
four at the elementary level and one at the secondary level. The BOCs are intended to
quickly build English language skills and prepare the students to successfully integrate
into the ESL programs offered at many district schools. Parents may choose to send their
children directly into district schools and bypass the BOC program.
Bilingual Orientation Centers
Defining its BOC program as Sheltered English Immersion, the district groups its BOC
students into self-contained classrooms on actual school campuses, typically for one or
two semesters. Students receive instruction in traditional subjects-such as language
arts, reading, math, and social studies-in all-day programs. For some classes, such as
physical education, library, or computer class, students are mainstreamed with native-
English speaking students.
Students attending BOCs are assigned into grade-specific classes based on an assessment
of their English skills and maturity level; thus, a grade 5 BOC class might teach students
of varying ages. The four elementary BOCs serve grade 1 through 5 students. With an
approximate 20 to 1 student-to-teacher ratio, each center is staffed with three full-time
teachers and bilingual instructional assistants. Assigned to teachers based on the
language needs of the students, instructional assistants are typically bilingual specialists
sjobergevashenk 1-37
providing language support to students and communicating both orally and in writing
with their families.
Elementary BOC students are assessed throughout the semester, with the hope of
achieving certain desired predetermined benchmarks. Typically, the district estimates that
students remain in the centers' intensified instruction for one or two semesters. Once the
students exit the BOC program, they choose an elementary school and English as a
Second Language (ESL) program from a list of "cluster" schools available in the
student's neighborhood area. Although not required, the district encourages schools to
keep their ESL class size to 20 students.
For LEP students entering the district in grades 6 through 12, one BOC is available at the
secondary school level. Depending on the volume of LEP students, this separate single
campus BOC can serve between 150 to 400 pupils in a given semester. Similar to the
elementary level, a language assessment determines each individual's English skill
level-ESL I, ESL 11, or ESL III. Like their elementary BOC counterparts, students
generally stay in the secondary BOC for one or two semesters before transitioning into a
cluster school's ESL program.
The secondary BOC, staffed with one principal-type administrator, one full-time
counselor, and 13 core teachers, instruct students in core courses-including math, social
science, history, ESL reading, and ESL science--during a six-period school day.
According to the district, when the secondary BOC is faced with a larger student
population, it uses long-term substitute teachers to help reduce class-size.
Teachers at the elementary and secondary levels receive ongoing district training to
develop their LEP teaching skills. While the district provides ongoing training to
teachers and instructional assistants, it does not provide any stipends, bonuses, or special
pay to teachers or instructional assistants with ESL or Bilingual endorsements.
District ESL Program
Once LEP students move out of the BOC environment and into a traditional ESL
component, the specific type of ESL program and instructional delivery methods used
vary greatly between schools as allowed under the district's use of site-based
management principles. According to the district, some schools mainstream their LEP
students using a Structured Immersion type of program; others operate pullout programs
to teach their LEP students in self-contained classrooms. Beginning with the 2000-2001
school year, one of the elementary schools has established an "international school" that
uses a dual-language program starting in grade 1. Open to both native and non-native
English speakers, the goal is for students to achieve proficiency in two languages and
become familiar with the history and culture of both languages.
1-38 sjobergevashenk
Additionally, instructional methods used by individual schools can vary also. Some
schools follow the Direct Instruction method-similar to the Phoenix Advantage Charter
School discussed earlier in this report-yet, other schools may choose different
curriculum or delivery methods. Additionally, middle and high school programs teach
ESL and sheltered English classes where English is taught through a specific content area
such as science or history.
With site based management, the district feels that the "traditional pullout model has
given way to more integrated approaches where eligible students are served by ESL staff
in one, or a combination of several models" as shown below:
J Pullout Model: Students are assigned to a mainstream classroom and pulled out
to the ESL classroom for supplementary English-intensive instruction averaging
30 to 45 minutes a day in groups of 5 to 12 students.
J Pull-In Model: Bilingual staff go into the mainstream classroom to teach
students who remain in their assigned desks or instruct students in a predesignated
area of the class.
J Basic Skills Block: ESL students participate in the school's "skills block period"
lasting two to two and a half hours during the school day where the they
participate in small group instruction for math and basic reading skills. During
the remainder of the day, ESL teachers concentrate on the most needy ESL
students using a pullout model.
J Blended Model: Students are instructed using strategies appropriate for their
individual academic needs, but receive their instruction in blended groups that
may include compensatory education, special education, or mainstream students.
J Tutorial Model: In those schools without an ESL program, limited English
proficient students receive between one and three hours of tutoring weekly.
Key Program Components
As a result of our work with the district, we identified the key components of the
Bilingual Orientation Centers and the Bilingual Family Center. Certain of these elements
replace or supplant the fundamental educational cunriculum and programs provided to all
children of the Seattle area; others provide supplemental services for LEP students and
generate incremental costs to the district.
Accordmg to the Seattle Public Schools budget information for 2000-2001, nearly $12.8
million will be allocated for bilingual education programs in the district. With a district
general fund program budget of nearly $423 million, bilingual education comprises
approximately 3.1 percent of expected spending. Schools with BOCs receive some direct
sjobergevashenk 1-39
funding for their programs through the state's weighted finding formula. The district
amount provided through the weighting formula for the 2000-2001 year totals
approximately $7.6 million.
The district has provided data enabling us to estimate the incremental costs of delivering
LEP services. We discuss these key incremental program components below. To
maintain some comparability between the Bilingual Orientation Centers' programs
(including the Bilingual Family Center) and the other model programs identified for
Phase I of this study, we have attempted to use the same program element classifications.
It is important to note that the BOC program was targeted for review; therefore, we did
not analyze the other extensive ESL services provided to Seattle students outside of this
intensive "beginner" program nor the associated incremental costs. Additionally, the
Seattle Public Schools District employs a "block grant" funding concept; specifically, the
funding provided by the district is intended to fund a full range of programs and services
as directed by the individual schools along with their school boards. Although the
district's funding formula includes additional monies generated based on a school's LEP
student population, the funds are available for spending in any manner as directed by
school officials. To that end, the district does not track its spending specific to its LEP
programs. Thus, in our discussion and worksheet below, we only present the program
components and estimated incremental costs related to the district's BOC and Bilingual
Family Center.
BOC Classrooms. Credentialed teachers provide core instruction to elementary
students in self-contained classrooms within four elementary schools. m l e the
pace and instructional methods are intended to quickly boost English language
proficiency, children receive instruction in core topics. Similarly, students at the
secondary level attend the one BOC at a secondary school. They receive
instruction in the core subjects also, but with a strong emphasis in attaining a
certain level of English proficiency. Like the "beginner" programs identified in
other schools, these BOC classes are not themselves incremental costs because
they teach a similar curriculum to the curriculum taught in mainstream classes
within the normal academic day.
2. Reduced Class Size. The BOCs limit class size to approximately 20 students
per teacher. In the beginning of the school year, class size can be as low as 14
but generally rises during the course of the year. However, regular mainstream
class size for the district is also 20 students per teacher. As a result, there are no
costs for reduced class sizes.
3. Bilinaual Instructional Assistants (Classroom Aides). Typically, at least one
instructional aide is assigned per BOC class. These aides are bilingual and
provide native-language communication to many of the participating students and
their families. For the 2000-2001 year, the BOCs are budgeted for 20.5 full-time
equivalent bilingual instructional aides.
1-40 sjobergevashenk
4. Administrative Staff. The Bilingual Family Center could be considered entirely
an incremental cost of the program. The family center is staffed with 3 full-time
and 6 part-time teachers who place students into the appropriate educational
program. Moreover, the secondary BOC has a dedicated principal-type
administrator and one full-time counselor in addition to its teaching faculty.
However, with enrollment ranging fi-om 150 to 400 students, it is arguable
whether these secondary school costs are incremental or would be incurred to
meet the needs of any student group of that size.
Other individuals at the district level devote some portion of their time to the
BOC and Bilingual Family Center. At the secondary BOC, one program
manager's time is fully dedicated to the BOC; while 3 percent of the principal's
time at the elementary BOCs is devoted. Additionally, at the Bilingual Family
Center, one coordinator and six staffs time is fully dedicated to assessing LEP
students.
5. Summer Programs and Field Trips. The district provides a summer program
and various field trips to LEP students at the BOCs. Costs provided for the field
trips include transportation and admission; however, the district was unable to
retrieve its summer program costs. Thus, we could not include these expenses in
our analysis.
6. Teacher Training and Development. The district provides a variety of on-going
and structured training opportunities to all teachers, including BOC
teachers. In addition, the district is aware of the need for all teachers to have
skills in providing quality educational opportunities to LEP children. Therefore,
in the summer, the district's bilingual education department sponsors a summer
institute open to all teachers.
7. Textbooks. BOCs use a variety of textbooks in the classrooms. While some are
specific to LEP students, most provide the required source materials needed by
all children. However, the district indicated that some BOCs use additional
textbook materials than other mainstream classes.
8. Mani~ulativesM, aterials, Supplies, and Tools. The district indicates that the
BOCs use a variety of manipulatives, materials, supplies and tools to bring
recognition and understanding to lessons. From compact disks to picture books
to maps, many materials are available.
9. Teacher Stipends, Bonuses, Special Pav. While many BOC teachers have ESL
or Bilingual endorsements, the district does not offer stipends, bonuses or special
pay for teachers with endorsements or teaching in the ESL program.
sjobergevashenk 1-41
10. Teacher Recruiting and Retention. The district reports that it has little
difficulty filling positions in the BOCs and its related family center. Usually,
positions are quickly filled. Retention programs are the responsibility of the
district.
11. Assessments, Reassessments, and Reclassification. The costs of initial
language assessments is included in the costs of the Bilingual Family Center in
item 4 above. After the initial assessment and children are placed in the BOCs,
evaluations occur regularly in the classroom. Chldren are formally monitored
though a district progress report that assesses English comprehension, speaking,
reading and writing. The typical language assessment tools and standardized
testing are employed in the other district ESL programs.
12. Other Costs. No other incremental costs were identified for the program.
1-42 sjobergevashenk
Seattle Public Schools'
Bilingual Orientation Centers/Bilingual Family Center
English Acquisition Programs
Cost Worksheet
2000-2001 School Year
Worksheet 5.
sjobergevashenk 1-43
None Identified
Total Incremental Program Cost $1,353,490
Seattle Public Schools
Bilingual Orientation Centers/Bilingual Family Center
English Acquisition Programs
Cost Worksheet
2000-2001 School Year
Calculation of Cost Per Student
Incremental costs estimated by district for 2000-2001 $1,353,490
Total LEP students enrolled in BOCs (estimated) 450
Total Incremental BOC Costs for Per LEP Student $3.007.75
Calculation of Cost Per Student
Projection in 2002 Arizona cost of living dollarsg
Incremental costs of BOC program per LEP student $3..007.75
Projection of per student cost $3.067.91
Fiscal Year 2002 Arizona cost of living factor is estimated at 2 percent per year. This mirrors the factor
included in the text of Proposition 301, passed by Arizona voters in November 2000, and in Arizona statute
for basic state aid.
1-44 sjobergevashenk
READ Institute
Phase I-Chapter 2
Enalish Acauisition Model Proaram Review
Chapter Summary
In Phase 1 of this program cost study the Arizona Department of Education asked The Institute
for Research in English Acquisition and Development (READ) to focus on six specific programs
for LEP students that can best be described as English immersion programs and to identify key
elements of their success. Every one of these programs uses an English-teaching approach that
does not rely on the students' native languages for classroom instruction, although few of these
programs have all the elements of a classic structured/sheltered English immersion envisioned by
some educators.' In most cases, Limited English Proficient (LEP) students attend mainstream
classrooms with native-English-speakers as much as possible, according to each student's level
of English proficiency. This kind of flexibility allows students to move ahead or cover learning
materials as many times as necessary, according to each one's cognitive ability and individual
circumstances.
The common elements across all programs are smaller class sizes during specialized English
instructional time, heavy use of phonics based reading programs, direct instruction, and high
levels of ongoing teacher training. Many of these programs employ bilingual teachers or aides,
who may use the students' native language on occasion to ease the transition process. All
instruction in reading, writing, and other school subjects is given using content-based teaching
techniques which use a modified curriculum and visuals to assist LEP students in learning
English and understanding the curriculum simultaneously. In each program surveyed, teachers
hold high expectations for LEP students, and students are taught the same curriculum as the
mainstream students, albeit at a slightly modified pace.
1 A Structuredlsheltered English Immersion Program is based on the premise that children can learn a second language rapidly
and effectively, and can learn school subjects taught in the second language almost from the first day of school. The essential
features are:
A self-contained classroom with all LEP students.
Professional staff trained in structured immersion approaches.
The teacher or aide may know the primary language of the students but does not use it for instruction purposes and always
answers student questions in English.
A special cumculum is employed which uses content-based language teaching strategies similar to ESL. Content and
English are taught concurrently.
All instruction, print materials, texts, videos are in English.
READ Institute 1-45
While some schools do provide pay incentives for English as a Second Language (ESL) certified
teachers, most do not. Funds are often used on professional development for all teachers and
teachers' aides to teach them techniques to work with LEP students. A common characteristic of
these programs is a school culture that views education for LEP students as being the
responsibility of every teacher and teacher's aide. Except for the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania,
English Acquisition Program, all the other schools studied have problems with shortages of
teachers and aides, but few have problems retaining qualified teachers.
We established that our criteria for program success would be reclassification rates and
standardized assessment scores. The programs selected by the Arizona Department of Education
and the READ Institute were chosen on the presumption that they were successful.
Reclassification rates, or changing a student's classification fi-om LEP to non-LEP, is only one
criterion for program success and may not always be the most accurate one, since students are
often successfully exited from special programs to mainstream classrooms before they are
technically reclassified. Research on programs for LEP students shows that most LEP students
are capable of performing mainstream classroom work well before they meet the arbitrary
criteria for reclassification (Rossell, 2000).
Reliance on standardized assessment tests to establish program effectiveness also has drawbacks.
Most often, LEP students are exempted from standardized tests in English for several years and
only those LEP students who are expected to pass the test take it. In the case of Pennsylvania,
there is no requirement for students to take standardized tests, so test score data are not available.
All districts with LEP students measure their students' progress in learning English by using
such tests as the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) to measure fi-om Beginner to Intermediate
to Advanced levels, along with teacher evaluations of student work, portfolios, and other
measures.
The common denominator among all of these programs is the conviction that teaching children
English as quickly as possible allows them to successfully perform grade appropriate academic
work in a classroom with their native-English-speaking peers. While LEP students in high
school, especially those with no prior education, take longer to learn English, elementary level
students are mainstreamed within two years in most cases.
1-46 READ Institute
Phoenix Advantaae Charter School
LEP Program Grades K-8
Johanna Haver
Program Elements
Phoenix Advantage Charter School is part of a national management company that oversees
fifteen schools in eight states. All Advantage schools share the same instructional model and
curriculum that is based on Direct Instruction, also known as Distar. The materials include
Reading Mastery, a systematic phonics program, Language for Learning, Spelling Mastery,
Distar Arithmetic, and Connecting Math Concepts, all published by SRA. The lessons are
scripted for the teachers in reading, language, and math. Students learn in small instructional
groups based on academic skill level rather than grade. Their progress is evaluated almost on a
weekly basis. Students are moved fiom group to group according to what skills they have
mastered. Also, students participate in specially designed character education programs and
adhere to the standards of the President's Council on Physical Fitness. Students follow a uniform
dress code.
Phoenix Advantage began as a free and public Arizona charter school in September of 1997 with
250 students in grades K-5. Now, in its fourth year, the school's enrollment has reached 1,030
students and extends through grade 8. The e t h c make-up is 70% Hispanic, 15% Anglo, 13%
Afiican-American, and 2% other. There is one school director, six other professional staff, 40
teachers, and 19 instructional assistants. Many of the students come fiom families that are very
mobile; thus the student body in the fall looks quite different from that in the spring. The school
year lasts 200 days, which is 25 school days longer than the school year of traditional Arizona
public schools. Also, the school day runs from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., which is fiom 1 ?4 to 2
hours longer than that of most Arizona public schools. Phoenix Advantage received Presidential
Academic Awards in both 1998 and 1999. Considering that most of these students are considered
"at-risk," the test results have been very good.
As is the case with charter schools in general, enrollment is strictly voluntary, and the
instructional program is the same for all students whether LEP or not. The school uses the same
structured and sequential approach for building language skills for all students, and all students
follow the same scripted lessons.
Only those LEP students with the lowest level of English in grades 2 to 8 receive ESL instruction
separate fiom mainstream classes. In grades K to 1, the regular program is designed in such a
way that it addresses the needs of the very young LEP and non-LEP students in the same
classroom.
There are two non-graded ESL classes for the 60 beginning LEP students in grades 2 to 8. One
contains 30 students in grades 2,3, and 4; the other, 30 students in grades 5,6,7, and 8. A full-time
instructional assistant is also assigned to each class. The cuniculum for beginning ESL
students is the same as for mainstream students, but presented in a manner especially designed
READ Institute 1-47
for LEP students. Sometimes the LEP students in the beginning classes use the Horizon reading
program, whch like Reading Mastery has a Direct Instruction format.
LEP students receive instructional assistance in these beginning classes for most of the day. With
few exceptions, LEP students exit beginning ESL in one year, although some students may
continue in the program for an additional year. After completion of beginning ESL, these
students are placed in mainstream classes.
The format for all classes is that the teacher andlor the instructional assistant work directly with a
group of 8 to 12 students while the rest of the class works independently at their desks. The
students repeat in unison after the teacher in accordance with the scripted lesson. At the end of a
task, the teacher gives students individual turns to check for student mastery of the skill that has
been taught or introduced. The individual turns allow the teacher to know which students may
need additional practice at the end of the lesson.
Mastery tests are given approximately every 5 to 10 lessons, depending on the program. Mastery
is achieved when 90% of the students score 90% or better on the test. Students who do not
receive 90% receive remedial assistance and are re-tested. Occasionally a student has to be
moved to a lower group that moves more slowly, or to a higher group that moves more rapidly.
Because each subject is scheduled at the same time for all classes, it is not difficult to make these
adjustments. Because the school year and school day are unusually long, all remedial student
needs are met within the regular school daylyear.
The school's philosophy is based on the theory that children need a strong educational
foundation and will succeed if presented with structured, sequential lessons. Although many
teachers and other staff members speak Spanish, the curriculum is in English except for a small
amount of Spanish taught as a foreign language. The teachers understand that the students'
native language is not a barrier to their achievement. It is not acceptable to isolate LEP students
or to expect less from them.
LEP Statistics
LEP students comprise 54% of the student body, with more than 500 students designated as LEP.
Many of the students have been unsuccessful in other schools. It is estimated that 99% of the
LEP students speak Spanish and 78% of the all students participate in the free or reduced price
school lunch program.
Staffing Model
The student to teacher ratios are as follows:
Kindergarten has 25 students to one teacher and one instructional assistant.
First grade has 30 students to one teacher and one instructional assistant.
Grades 2 to 8 have 30 students to one teacher.
1-48 READ Institute
There is an average of 22 students per teacher or teacher's aide, and there is one aide per grade
level for grades 2 to 8.
Teachers are required to have at least a bachelor's degree, and ESL endorsement is not required.
However, bilingual skills in Spanish and English are highly prized and at least two teachers have
ESL endorsements.
All teachers and instructional assistants serve LEP students. The professional development for
both groups includes ten days training at the beginning and five days throughout the school year.
Informally, there is on-going professional development, mentoring, and guidance among
teachers.
There is a shortage of teachers. The recruiting strategy includes advertisements in the newspaper
and sending individuals from the corporate office to teacher job fairs and teacher conferences to
find employees. However, most of the teachers come to the school after hearing about it by word
of mouth.
The pay for teachers is equitable to that of other public school teachers, but these teachers work
harder because of longer hours and the extended school year. The pay schedule is merit-based
and exemplary teacher performance can result in a 9-10% pay increase. There is an extensive
point and rating system, and teachers are judged for the progress they make with lessons, their
work ethic, their team spirit, their contributions to colleagues, and their ability to communicate
with parents.
Assessment Statistics
LEP students take the oral portion of the Idea Proficiency Test (IPT) twice a year and the
curriculum mastery skill tests almost weekly. The IPT is helpful in that it offers documentation
as to the students' overall progress toward English language proficiency.
The reclassification criteria have not been firmly established. "Reclassification" would be
meaningless as to placement, because students are assessed on skill mastery frequently and
almost all LEP students are mainstreamed after one year.
Table 1-1. Phoenix Advantage Charter School
AIMS Results for All Students
School Year 1999-2000
Grade / Numberof I MeanScore I MeanScore I MeanScore 1
3
students were present for all portions of the test.
READ Institute 1-49
5
Students
Tested*
77-80
*The number of students tested varied because different portions of the test were administered on different days and not all
78-79
Math
475
464
Reading
510
Writing
5 18
494 470
The State of Arizona requires that the Arizona Instruments to Measure Standards (AIMS) Test be
administered annually in the spring to all students in grades 3, 5, 8, and high school. When a
student scores at least 500 points on any of the three sections of the test, that student has met the
standard in that particular subject area.
Table 1-2. Phoenix Advantage Charter School
Spanish version of the AIMS Results
School Year 1999-2000
Note: The Spanish version of the AIMS test may be taken only once in place of the English version.
Table 1-3. Phoenix Advantage Charter School
Stanford 9 Percentile Rank Scores--All Students
School Year 1999-2000
The Stanford 9 is a standardized, nationally norm-referenced test administered annually to
students in Grades 2-12. The national, average percentile rank score for each grade and each
subject is the 5oth percentile. LEP students who attended school in Arizona for fewer than three
years were exempt fiom this test.
Arizona's Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) is an indicator of student academic growth
fiom one year to the next. The results displayed in Table 1-4 are based on the Stanford 9, given in
1999 and 2000. MAP includes only those students who were tested both years in consecutive
grade levels at the same school or who started the school year in the same school in which they
were tested in 2000.
1-50 READ Institute
Table 1-4. Phoenix Advantage Charter School
MAP Results--All Students
School Year 1999-2000
Grade I % Expected 1 Percentile 1 % IC;~;-ted 1
Gain - Math Rank Rank
Average student growth over the course of the past academic year is compared to a national
average in the table above. One hundred percent indicates that students in a particular grade level
at the school have achieved an average amount of growth compared to a national sample. A
percentage greater than 100 percent indicates student growth was greater than the national
average.
2nd-3rd
READ Institute 1-5 1
152
Math (1999)
27
Reading
139
Reading (1999)
38
1-52 READ Institute
Glendale High School LEP Program
English Acquisition Program Grades 9-12
Johanna Haver
Program Elements
Glendale High School is one of nine comprehensive secondary high schools in the Glendale
High School District. One principal and three assistant principals oversee sixty-five teachers, six
other professional staff, and nineteen teacher aides. Thirty-three of those teachers have a
Master's Degree or higher, and thirty-two of them have taught for ten years or longer.
The enrollment of Glendale High School is 1,4 10 students with approximately 140 identified as
Limited English Proficient (LEP). The school is considered a majority-minority school with 50%
Hispanic, 40% Anglo, 8% Ahcan-American, and 2% other. The general school population is
highly transient with as many as 600 in and out during one school year. Nevertheless, the
Stanford 9 Percentile Rank Scores indicate a trend of 9-10 percentile gains in reading and
language from the 9" to the 1 1 th grade with math scores remaining at the national norm. The
AIMS results show a momentum that makes it likely that a large majority of the loth and 1 lth
graders will pass the reading and writing sections of the AIMS test in time for graduation. The
math section remains a challenge for these students, as it is for high school students throughout
Arizona.
Students have many opportunities to prepare themselves for college andlor work beyond high
school, and 13% to 14% of the students take AP classes that include English literature, French,
Spanish, U.S. history, U.S. government, physics, and calculus. The district pays for the AP
testing of all students. Selected students participate in Ace Plus, a partnership with Glendale
Community College that allows students to earn up to 24 college credits while still in high
school. Cisco Networking Academy, a two-year program, prepares students for internationally
recognized certification in computer networking. Over 80% of the 1999 graduating class went on
to college, and it is believed that 88% of the 2000 graduating class enrolled in postsecondary
schooling also and 46% of the 2000 graduates received college scholarships that equaled
$3,58 1,800.
Remedial help is available to students. The school offers extensive academic assistance to all
students before and after school through Title-1. ESL resource classes are offered to LEP
students where aides and sometimes computers are available. A peer-tutoring program is also in
place that makes it possible for students to be trained to assist their fellow-classmates and earn a
hgh school credit as well. Many former or advanced ESL students are especially eager to
participate in this program so that they can lend a hand to those students who are just beginning
to learn English.
Glendale High School uses a structured English immersion model for LEP instruction. The
philosophy is that LEP students need to be taught English intensively to such a degree that they
can move as soon as possible into the mainstream to participate in all the academic opportunities
READ Institute 1-53
of Glendale High School. It is the policy of Glendale High School to explain to the parents of
students identified as LEP that participation in the ESL program is voluntary.
There is no sheltering outside of reading and English classes. ESL students are encouraged
strongly by ESL teachers, content-area teachers, and administrators to participate in the many
school activities.
The ideal case progression of an LEP student's education occurs when that student has literacy in
his or her native language. A literate, well-educated child who speaks no English initially can
move quickly through the ESL program in two years, and, after that, possibly qualify for honors
and Advanced Placement (AP) classes. The worse case progression occurs when an LEP student
has received no formal education. It is very difficult for any high school to make up for the lost
time, especially when the instruction is in a language unfamiliar to the child. Generally, the
child needs a great deal of remedial help.
English as a Second Language (ESL) classes are offered in grades 9-12 to students according
to their particular level of English language proficiency.
Beginning; Level - 3 periods per day - 15 students to one ESL endorsed teacher (20 max)
and two aides.
ESL Speaking
ESL Reading
ESL Writing
Intermediate Level - 2 periods per day - 25.8 students to one ESL endorsed teacher
(same as regular class) and one aide.
ESL English 1-2
ESL Reading 1-2
Advanced Level - 2 periods per day - 25.8 students to one ESL endorsed teacher (same
as regular class) and one aide.
ESL English 3-4
ESL Reading 3-4
ESL Resource - 1 period per day - 25.8 students to one ESL endorsed teacher (same as
regular class) and one aide.
Beginning ESL Speaking. The instruction concentrates on building basic listening, speaking,
reading, and writing skills. Students are taught how to pronounce words clearly, follow oral
directions and commands, and to respond appropriately to oral questions. The students learn to
use target vocabulary and simple grammatical forms correctly while speaking on a variety of
topics. This includes spontaneous conversation, prepared dialogues, and speeches.
Beginning ESL Writing. Beginning students are taught simple and compound sentence
structure, usage, and mechanics. The correct use of target vocabulary in context is emphasized.
Composition pieces introduced include a brief personal narrative andlor poem, short summary or
1-54 READ Institute
factual information, personal letter, brief personal information card, simple application, and
explanatory paragraph.
Beginning ESL Reading. Students develop oral and silent reading skills. While reading fiction
and non-fiction, students practice reciprocal reading strategies, the process of reading paragraphs
orally in pairs and then asking each other questions about those paragraphs. Extensive
vocabulary, selected literary terms, and selected literary elements are introduced. Students are
taught to analyze both fiction and non-fiction for overall meaning.
During the rest of the day the beginning students are mainstreamed into classes that do not
require print-based material. They include math, PE, art, and music.
(Intermediate Level) ESL English 1-2. Students develop English writing proficiency along
with effective oral presentation skills and reading strategies. The composition pieces include the
explanatory essay, summary, personal narrative, and personal letter. Students learn to apply
correct conventions to their writing and to locate resources in the media center. The curriculum is
based on the gth grade language arts curriculum.
(Intermediate Level) Reading 1-2. Development of reciprocal reading strategies for both fiction
and non-fiction is encouraged. This is a