	January/February 2005
California Educators Call Extra $30 Million for ELL Materials a Minefield By Ines Alicea, ELL Outlook™ Staff Writer Some California educators say the $30 million the state legislature recently earmarked for schools to buy supplementary instructional materials for English language learners (ELLs) is such a minefield that it is likely to have limited positive impact. "When the process is so complex and the time line so short, it is difficult for schools to meet the intent [of the law] to provide high-quality instructional materials," said Linda Sasser, an English language development specialist for Alhambra Unified School District in Los Angeles County and a former president of California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, better known as CATESOL. The $30 million is a small part of a larger settlement in a major class action lawsuit filed against the state and state education agencies by civil rights groups to improve conditions in schools in low-income areas. But educators say the funds come with so many restrictions and are being offered under such a tight time line that some districts may not bother to apply for them or may be unsure how to apply. "I have to be grateful for the additional funds, but I'm not comfortable with the torturous procedures we have to go through to get the funds," said Quoc Tran, English language development program coordinator for the Alhambra Unified School District in Los Angeles County. In September, the California legislature announced that it was eager to accelerate ELLs' achievement of grade-level proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking English, and that if schools acted quickly they could share in the $30 million that lawmakers were releasing for schools to buy additional instructional materials. State officials said that by the fall of 2005 California school districts could receive up to $25 for each English language learner enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth grade. The funds would be earmarked for supplemental instructional materials. "This is significant because it's part of the [state's 2004-2005] budget act and because [the California legislature] set aside money for this purpose," said Tom Adams, director of the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources division of the California Department of Education. But Sasser argues that the law was written in such a way that it does not give schools flexibility in using the funds to best meet the needs of their ELLs. Schools that receive the money will only be able to use it for instructional materials, not for videos, field trips, or other materials or activities that expand a child's learning, she said. "I'm not sure that throwing another textbook at a child who is struggling to learn English will make a difference," said Sasser, whose district has 6,000 ELLs. The legislature allocated $363 million for instructional materials for California schools, of which $30 million was set aside on a one-time basis specifically to buy supplementary instructional materials for ELLs, according to Jack O'Connell, California Superintendent of Public Instruction, in a September 14 letter written to county and district superintendents and governing board presidents. The actual amount each school district will get per ELL will depend on how many of California's 1,000 school districts decide to apply for the funds, but those that apply can expect to receive $17 to $25 per student, Adams said. The amount of money each district receives will also depend on how many ELLs it has according to the latest school census figures. About 40 percent of the nation's ELLs live in California. Some 1.6 million of the state's 6.3 million students are considered ELLs, with 85 percent of them being native Spanish speakers, according to the state Department of Education. Tran said that while he welcomes any and all money he is offered for his students, the amount that can be purchased when receiving $25 per child is limited. "It is a help, but you can't build a program on it," said Tran. Adams said the state is requiring school districts to proceed differently in choosing instructional materials for ELLs. Usually, school districts are given a list of instructional materials from which to choose; once they make their selection of materials, the state pays for those materials. Under the current budget act, school districts must select the English/language arts materials they want to purchase based on their own discussions with publishers and submit their wish list to the Department of Education for review. The Department of Education will ensure that the materials correlate with the English language development standards established by the state. School districts must first decide whether they want to apply for the funds. Then they must submit paperwork by March 31 that lists the materials they would like to purchase, categorized by grade, type, and publisher. The materials must be supplementary and be used "in addition to the basic reading/language arts and other core program materials provided for every student," according to O'Connell's letter. School districts must also prove that the supplementary materials are "substantially correlated to identified state standards" by working with the publisher of the materials to provide a "standards map" validating that the materials correlate with the standards. Adams said the state Department of Education has developed a "correlation matrix" to serve as a template for the standards maps districts must provide. The matrix is divided into English proficiency levels and indicates how the materials make use of the English language development standards to obtain grade-level skills in reading, writing, and speaking. Through June, a panel of educators with expertise in English language development and in the education of English language learners will review the standards maps that school districts submit. "They will decide, then we verify, and then the state board acts to release the money," said Adams. "People want to see the schools make good choices and do what's best for children." Tran said he believes the procedure for purchasing and getting approval for the materials is much more cumbersome than is necessary. "It's a long, torturous process and then you could get rejected," said Tran. "There are no guarantees." Adams said he expects the state board of education will begin to release funds for the instructional materials to school districts beginning in July and classrooms may see new materials starting in September. "The good news is that there is additional funding," he said. "That's always a positive thing. The bad news is that [the school districts] will have to wait until after their selection [of materials] to get the materials. But we're pedalling as fast as we can." Once they secure the funds, the school districts have until June 2006 to use the money to purchase the materials, or they must return the funds to the state. Tran would have preferred the process move more slowly. Historically, many publishers have not focused on providing a wide array of supplementary materials, and Tran worries that with the state giving publishers such a short time line to develop such materials, the quality of the materials may not be high. Tran said that while $30 million sounds like a lot of money, it adds up to just a small amount per child when it is spread out among 1,000 school districts. Moreover, school districts that regularly struggle to secure funding for ELLs may face additional battles in the near term as they try to secure additional funding for materials. "For those not keen on supporting [ELL] issues, it gives them an excuse to say, 'Hey, didn't we just give them $30 million, so why are they still complaining?'" Tran said. The funds for the supplementary instructional materials for ELLs are part of a larger case known as Williams v. California settled in August by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Settlement in the case came after nearly four years of legal wrangling and $18 million in taxpayer funds. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the state on behalf of dozens of schoolchildren in 18 different school districts, demanding equal access to up-to-date and sufficient textbooks, qualified teachers, and safe and clean facilities. The lawsuit was named for Eli Williams of San Francisco, one of the 1 million low-income children represented. The Williams settlement provides additional funds to address some of the state's most urgent educational needs, including providing qualified teachers for every student, an end to the shortened school calendar for some of the most overcrowded schools, clean and safe school facilities, and up-to-date textbooks in core subjects for students. But educators worry that the state's budget deficit will force the state to provide empty promises rather than funds. Moreover, they worry about the state micromanaging local school activities. "This settlement relies heavily on bureaucratic solutions and detailing resources government should put into schools, rather than focusing on desired results-increased student achievement," said O'Connell in a prepared statement about the Williams settlement. "While it is important to give the public a clearer idea of how resources are distributed, surely more important is actually providing the resources to ensure that our children are receiving a world-class education. I continue to believe a more comprehensive approach is needed. There is no doubt that we can do a better job of funding education in California. What is really needed is a comprehensive evaluation of what it takes to achieve the desired 'output' of proficiency for all our students." For more information, please visit http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/englearnrs.asp. If you have any comments about this article or questions for for the author, please send them to: alex@coursecrafters.com.
Copyright © 2005 Course Crafters, Inc.® All rights reserved.

January/February 2005

California Educators Call Extra $30 Million for ELL Materials a Minefield

By Ines Alicea, ELL Outlook™ Staff Writer

Some California educators say the $30 million the state legislature recently earmarked for schools to buy supplementary instructional materials for English language learners (ELLs) is such a minefield that it is likely to have limited positive impact.

"When the process is so complex and the time line so short, it is difficult for schools to meet the intent [of the law] to provide high-quality instructional materials," said Linda Sasser, an English language development specialist for Alhambra Unified School District in Los Angeles County and a former president of California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, better known as CATESOL.

The $30 million is a small part of a larger settlement in a major class action lawsuit filed against the state and state education agencies by civil rights groups to improve conditions in schools in low-income areas. But educators say the funds come with so many restrictions and are being offered under such a tight time line that some districts may not bother to apply for them or may be unsure how to apply.

"I have to be grateful for the additional funds, but I'm not comfortable with the torturous procedures we have to go through to get the funds," said Quoc Tran, English language development program coordinator for the Alhambra Unified School District in Los Angeles County.

In September, the California legislature announced that it was eager to accelerate ELLs' achievement of grade-level proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking English, and that if schools acted quickly they could share in the $30 million that lawmakers were releasing for schools to buy additional instructional materials.

State officials said that by the fall of 2005 California school districts could receive up to $25 for each English language learner enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth grade. The funds would be earmarked for supplemental instructional materials.

"This is significant because it's part of the [state's 2004-2005] budget act and because [the California legislature] set aside money for this purpose," said Tom Adams, director of the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources division of the California Department of Education.

But Sasser argues that the law was written in such a way that it does not give schools flexibility in using the funds to best meet the needs of their ELLs. Schools that receive the money will only be able to use it for instructional materials, not for videos, field trips, or other materials or activities that expand a child's learning, she said. "I'm not sure that throwing another textbook at a child who is struggling to learn English will make a difference," said Sasser, whose district has 6,000 ELLs.

The legislature allocated $363 million for instructional materials for California schools, of which $30 million was set aside on a one-time basis specifically to buy supplementary instructional materials for ELLs, according to Jack O'Connell, California Superintendent of Public Instruction, in a September 14 letter written to county and district superintendents and governing board presidents.

The actual amount each school district will get per ELL will depend on how many of California's 1,000 school districts decide to apply for the funds, but those that apply can expect to receive $17 to $25 per student, Adams said. The amount of money each district receives will also depend on how many ELLs it has according to the latest school census figures. About 40 percent of the nation's ELLs live in California. Some 1.6 million of the state's 6.3 million students are considered ELLs, with 85 percent of them being native Spanish speakers, according to the state Department of Education.

Tran said that while he welcomes any and all money he is offered for his students, the amount that can be purchased when receiving $25 per child is limited. "It is a help, but you can't build a program on it," said Tran.

Adams said the state is requiring school districts to proceed differently in choosing instructional materials for ELLs. Usually, school districts are given a list of instructional materials from which to choose; once they make their selection of materials, the state pays for those materials. Under the current budget act, school districts must select the English/language arts materials they want to purchase based on their own discussions with publishers and submit their wish list to the Department of Education for review. The Department of Education will ensure that the materials correlate with the English language development standards established by the state.

School districts must first decide whether they want to apply for the funds. Then they must submit paperwork by March 31 that lists the materials they would like to purchase, categorized by grade, type, and publisher. The materials must be supplementary and be used "in addition to the basic reading/language arts and other core program materials provided for every student," according to O'Connell's letter. School districts must also prove that the supplementary materials are "substantially correlated to identified state standards" by working with the publisher of the materials to provide a "standards map" validating that the materials correlate with the standards.

Adams said the state Department of Education has developed a "correlation matrix" to serve as a template for the standards maps districts must provide. The matrix is divided into English proficiency levels and indicates how the materials make use of the English language development standards to obtain grade-level skills in reading, writing, and speaking. Through June, a panel of educators with expertise in English language development and in the education of English language learners will review the standards maps that school districts submit. "They will decide, then we verify, and then the state board acts to release the money," said Adams. "People want to see the schools make good choices and do what's best for children."

Tran said he believes the procedure for purchasing and getting approval for the materials is much more cumbersome than is necessary. "It's a long, torturous process and then you could get rejected," said Tran. "There are no guarantees."

Adams said he expects the state board of education will begin to release funds for the instructional materials to school districts beginning in July and classrooms may see new materials starting in September. "The good news is that there is additional funding," he said. "That's always a positive thing. The bad news is that [the school districts] will have to wait until after their selection [of materials] to get the materials. But we're pedalling as fast as we can."

Once they secure the funds, the school districts have until June 2006 to use the money to purchase the materials, or they must return the funds to the state.

Tran would have preferred the process move more slowly. Historically, many publishers have not focused on providing a wide array of supplementary materials, and Tran worries that with the state giving publishers such a short time line to develop such materials, the quality of the materials may not be high.

Tran said that while $30 million sounds like a lot of money, it adds up to just a small amount per child when it is spread out among 1,000 school districts. Moreover, school districts that regularly struggle to secure funding for ELLs may face additional battles in the near term as they try to secure additional funding for materials. "For those not keen on supporting [ELL] issues, it gives them an excuse to say, 'Hey, didn't we just give them $30 million, so why are they still complaining?'" Tran said.

The funds for the supplementary instructional materials for ELLs are part of a larger case known as Williams v. California settled in August by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Settlement in the case came after nearly four years of legal wrangling and $18 million in taxpayer funds. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the state on behalf of dozens of schoolchildren in 18 different school districts, demanding equal access to up-to-date and sufficient textbooks, qualified teachers, and safe and clean facilities. The lawsuit was named for Eli Williams of San Francisco, one of the 1 million low-income children represented.

The Williams settlement provides additional funds to address some of the state's most urgent educational needs, including providing qualified teachers for every student, an end to the shortened school calendar for some of the most overcrowded schools, clean and safe school facilities, and up-to-date textbooks in core subjects for students. But educators worry that the state's budget deficit will force the state to provide empty promises rather than funds. Moreover, they worry about the state micromanaging local school activities.

"This settlement relies heavily on bureaucratic solutions and detailing resources government should put into schools, rather than focusing on desired results-increased student achievement," said O'Connell in a prepared statement about the Williams settlement. "While it is important to give the public a clearer idea of how resources are distributed, surely more important is actually providing the resources to ensure that our children are receiving a world-class education. I continue to believe a more comprehensive approach is needed. There is no doubt that we can do a better job of funding education in California. What is really needed is a comprehensive evaluation of what it takes to achieve the desired 'output' of proficiency for all our students."

For more information, please visit http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/englearnrs.asp.

If you have any comments about this article or questions for for the author, please send them to: alex@coursecrafters.com.