Where's the Beef?: Tracking the Federal Funds Behind
ELL Mandates

By Michelle Adam, ELL Outlook™ Staff Writer

In an era of tight state budgets and increased federal education mandates, state legislators and school administers have argued that No Child Left Behind is an intrusive federal mandate without adequate funding. For example, Republican legislators in both Minnesota and Arizona have introduced "opt-out" legislation that would allow states to reject certain NCLB requirements, and ten other state legislatures have passed resolutions highly critical of the law. But where do English Language Learners stand within this picture?

Because ELLs are one of the most complex groups of students to educate, states receive Title III federal funds to "support" (but not supplant) costs for their education. Under No Child Left Behind, these Title III funds total $675.8 million-apparently about $123 per ELL, but in reality less. Five million of these monies are given to Native Americans; 6.5% of Title III funds are put aside for national activities, including the National Professional Development Project, the National Clearinghouse for English Acquisition, and evaluation; up to 5% of Title III monies may be used for state professional development, planning and evaluation, and technical assistance; and no more than 60% of the state set-aside, or $175,000, can be allocated to planning and administrative expenses. That leaves a total of $582.2 million, minus state administrative and training costs for ELLs-approximately $105.85 or less annually per student. For Arizona, Texas, and California, that boils down to $98, $125.50, and $97.20 extra respectively per ELL student.

Measuring exactly how much federal money reaches ELLs in the classroom, however, remains a challenge, since this subgroup also benefits from Title I and II funds.

"On the federal level it is hard to tell at this time how much money we are spending on ELLs," said Kathleen Leos, associate deputy undersecretary for the Office of Language Acquisition within the Department of Education. For the future, the Department of Education is establishing a performance-based data management system (PBDMI) that will allow database users to cross-reference numbers and actually determine how much money reaches ELLs.

Despite the different federal funding sources, many argue that it's not enough to meet NCLB mandates-especially given the pressure to push ELLs through the system as quickly as possible. "On the national level, they are significantly underfunding ELLs," said Jeff Simmering, director of legislative services for the Council of Great City Schools.

Jim Crawford, executive director of the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE), also argued that "the federal government is challenging states to meet standards never set before, but they are not putting significant resources into these programs." David Griffith, director of governmental affairs of the National Association of State Boards of Education concurred: "NCLB encourages states to provide assessments in the language of the students. Delivering these recourses to the students is a cost-intensive issue here."

According to Joe Harris, legislative assistant to House Budget Committee Member John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-SC), ELLs have been underfunded under Title III. "The $675.8 million is well below the $750 million appropriated under NCLB. We consider that to be underfunded, given the scope of the programs and the responsibility that states have to ELLs," he said. "We argue that $750 million is what we need to have a successful program, while Republicans argue that the $750 million is just a cap on what can be spent."

When looking at President Bush's Title III budget request for 2006, the suggested amount allocated for the program is the same as that for 2005-$675.8 million. This is less than the 2004 budget, which provided $681.20 in monies.

"When you are cutting everything it sends a weak message. If you want people to take it seriously, you have to put the money behind it," said Harris. "Every year lots of education programs have been cut. This is going against what we are preaching."

According to Leos, however, the Title III funds may appear to have leveled off, but in reality money that once went to competitive grants for ELL programs (Title VII funds, which were woven into Title III until its discontinuation in 2006) is now being provided to Language Acquisition State Grants within Title III. These grants, which all go toward the education of ELLs, increased from $548.4 million in 2004 to $675.80 in President Bush's 2006 budget request.

This increase doesn't count for much, however, in Harris' view. "If you keep underfunding year after year, you play a game of catch up, since we've underfunded since the beginning," he said.

Behind all the numbers-whether adequate or not-are mandates to which states are required to adhere in order to receive funding under NCLB. Although states are given "a lot of flexibility," according to Leos, they are required to meet federal guidelines when they receive federal monies.

"Every state must develop language standards aligned with content standards. They have to teach academic language as well as social and communicative language," said Leos. States must also submit a plan as to how ELLs will be educated.

If a school district does not make progress toward meeting its annual measurable achievement objectives for ELLs for two consecutive years, the state must require the district to develop and implement an improvement plan. If the district still is not meeting the state's objectives after four consecutive years, it must demand the district take corrective action and may also end assistance to the district.

Other requirements under NCLB include that ELLs achieve at high academic standards based on a state-determined time frame and methodology, and have highly qualified teachers who are certified in their content area. "Any teacher who is teaching ELLs must be fluent in English and in any other language of instruction," said Leos. "It's a challenge for districts and states, but they have really responded in looking at their certification and asking teachers to get certified."

While Leos believes the federal government's guidelines and funding provide an unprecedented opportunity for ELLs to finally receive a strong education, NABE's Crawford believes otherwise. "At this point there are a lot of kids out there not getting an adequate education, and a part of that is inadequate funding from the federal level," he said. "This is especially true in districts not accustomed to serving this population. It is an inadequate amount of money to create programs. These programs often don't have the expertise, administration, and certified teachers in these areas. And giving kids achievement tests and keeping records every year costs money."

Although some believe that NCLB has created new, underfunded costs connected with educating ELLs and students at large, others see the states as responsible for paying for the education of these students, especially those states that set high standards prior to No Child Left Behind but have failed to "put their money where their mouth is."

Consequently, states face growing pressure from their districts to determine "adequate cost" to meet the standards that they and the federal government have set. Meanwhile, despite greater mandates, the federal government's financial commitment to education remains at about 8%, and the ELL population continues to grow exponentially. The challenge now rests with establishing the right price tag on all levels-and paying it-to successfully advance these students through the educational pipeline.

Editor's Note: An article on state funding for ELL programs is also included in this issue.

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