Court Cases, Research Point to Underfunding of
ELL Programs at the State Level

By Michelle Adam, ELL Outlook™ Staff Writer

With states facing tremendous pressure to increase education funding to meet higher federal and state standards, Arizona released an unprecedented report last month revealing that English Language Learners are severely underfunded. The report, which was required as part of a federal court order against Arizona, showed that the state should spend an additional $210 million a year on ELLs-about $1200 more on each of these 175,000 students.

Although good news for Arizona's ELLs, "the cost study doesn't help in providing a road map to determine how much federal, local, and state money you can count toward satisfying the $210 million," said Tim Hogan, executive director of the Arizona Center for the Law in the Public Interest and plaintiff's council for the Flores v. Arizona lawsuit that brought the state's inadequate ELL funding to the attention of the courts.

Arizona currently spends about $355 per child on English learners in addition to the average per-child cost of $3,000, totaling nearly $80 million annually for English-learner education programs. The additional $210 million would provide ELLs with smaller class sizes and more tutoring, teacher training, and classroom supplies. But state lawmakers face a substantial budget deficit going into fiscal year 2006 and are likely to be challenged when grappling with how to provide adequate funds to educate ELL students.

Arizona isn't alone in facing lawsuits that challenge state education funding methods. According to Molly Hunter, director of legal research for the Campaign for Fiscal Equity in New York, 45 states have done so thus far (see http://www.schoolfunding.info).

In the case of West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District v. Shirley Neeley, local districts in Texas asserted that the state did not provide sufficient funding to give all students a constitutionally adequate education. Subsequently, in 1994, the Texas school finance system was declared unconstitutional, and the additional weighting of 10% of per-student state funds provided to ELLs was declared as not coming close to reimbursing school districts for the actual cost. According to the court finding, "The Taylor Study indicated that it costs $1,248 more to educate a limited English proficient student than a regular student, a sum far in excess of the amount generated by the weight."

While states face mounting pressure from districts to provide a more egalitarian and less arbitrary system for funding education, higher state standards and No Child Left Behind mandates place additional burdens on meeting the needs of ELLs. Moreover, states are being held accountable for providing a costly education for this diverse and ever-changing population, which has seen an immigration-fueled increase from 1 million students in 1980 to more than about 5.5 million today.

States share the cost of educating ELLs with the school districts and federal government; the latter provides funds-with mandates attached-that are "spare change" compared to state and district contributions. Federal funds for ELLs are provided through Title III (English Language Acquisition funds), Title I (for socioeconomically disadvantaged students), and Title II (for teachers who educate disadvantaged students). The total funds that reach ELLs in the classroom are hard to measure, but from Title III funding, only about $105.85 per student or less reaches the classroom (see "Where's the Beef?: Tracking the Federal Funds Behind ELL Mandates" in this issue).

State contributions to ELL education vary from state to state as well, ranging from an additional 10% above the average per pupil cost in Arizona to an extra 50% in New Mexico. Whether the amount spent is appropriate for the needs of ELLs has been a matter of argument. According to a report on state school funding policies by Bruce D. Baker and Paul L. Markham, "While some state courts are placing increased emphasis on more rational, empirically justifiable funding formulas for achieving adequate services, studies of the costs of providing bilingual education have produced widely varying results, ranging from less than an extra 5% above basic education costs . . . to an extra 100%." The Education Commission of the States also randomly selected 10 states to assess their various approaches to ELL funding, and noted the following information for 2001-02: Florida spent an additional 26 percent on ELLs-about $904.50 per ELL; California, $100 per ELL; and New York, 19 percent-approximately $776 per ELL.

Arizona's state legislature raised its 6% allotment to 10% in 2000 after the courts determined that the state's funding was arbitrary and required a cost study. Despite the increase, Hogan, who pursued the court case on behalf of ELLs, returned to the courts several times to "get the state to act."

"I kept saying 'doubling 0 is still 0'," he commented. "They were trying to get the courts off their back. At that time I objected and said this increase in cost was still arbitrary."

According to Hogan, the increase in ELL funds to about $300 above the average per student cost barely alleviated the burden on local school districts. "Of the 228 school districts, virtually all of them spend more than that amount on ELLs," said Hogan. "The state never gave enough money for ELLs. They are under law to teach language and skills, yet most schools spend more than that $300. I'm aware of schools spending two to three thousand on each ELL. They usually get the money from a local base and use the federal funds they can."

In Texas, State Representative Rene Oliviera (D-Brownsville) recently called for billions of dollars in additional money to flow to Texas schools, including a fourfold increase-$468 million-for ELLs. Whether the state legislature has addressed his concerns and those presented by the West Orange v. Shirley Neeley court decision is a matter of opinion.

After the Texas House of Representatives passed an education bill for 2006 in early March, Catherine Clark, associate executive director of the Texas Association of School Boards, was dissatisfied. "When all is said and done, we will be at about the same level or a bit higher than the past years," said Clark. "The money is insufficient."

Texas, which accounts for more than 660,000 ELLs (more than 15% of its total K-12 school population), has calculated allotments to English Language Learners based on an education index, by applying percentage weights. According to Harrison Keller, director of research for the Texas Speaker of the House, ELLs receive 10% in addition to the basic per-student allotment. This adds up to about $438 above the basic allotment for students in bilingual classes. These students may also receive another 20% above the average allotment if they are socioeconomically disadvantaged (eligible for free or reduced lunch) or attend certain schools, among other factors.

Under the education bill that passed through the House, the percentage weight system would be replaced by dollar amounts: $500 per student in pre-K to grade 8 in a bilingual program, and $1,000 per ELL in grades 9-12 in such a program. The basic per-student allotment would begin at $4,550 for elementary students and $5,050 for high school students.

"We've spent a lot of time looking at issues relating to ELLs in the past years. I was pleased with the package we put together," said Keller. "We had projected $243 million for ELLs in 2006, but now this new bill would drive that to $332 million. This is a pretty substantial increase for districts that serve ELLs. Another provision in the bill is that, for the first time, districts are responsible for making sure ELLs are in programs to achieve proficiency. And if a student who has exited a bilingual program falls behind, they will be placed back in the program that is appropriate."

According to Keller, the bill's funding for ELLs in the younger grades is only slightly higher than in the past, but funding for students above eighth grade is roughly doubled.

Despite Keller's optimism, Albert Cortez, director of the Intercultural Development Research Association in Texas, shares a view with many other educational representatives that that House bill doesn't come close to addressing the needs of Texas ELLs and students in general.

"The proposed $500 is a very small increase, certainly in comparison to the district court finding in the West Orange Cove case that estimated add-on costs of 40 percent of the regular program cost," said Cortez about the money allotted to K-8 ELLs. "The proposed weight for 9-12 is an improvement, but the great majority of Texas' ELL pupils are enrolled in K-8, and even this amount does not bring the program up to the estimated add-on funding that research indicates is needed."

Cortez is also concerned about a provision in the bill that "instructs districts that they only have to continue funding ELLs at the level of the prior year. The kids earn the extra money, but this doesn't have to be used for these kids."

Although views differ regarding the additional money that may be spent on ELLs, "given all the adjustments and factors that go into the total cost of the system, bilingual education is a pretty small amount," said John McGeady, budget analyst for the Legislative Budget Board. "I assume districts spend more on ELLs than the funding rates reflect."

Concerns that states aren't paying their fair share for K-12 education reach far beyond Texas. While states try to determine how to produce the funds to reach ambitious state and federal goals for all students-and, more specifically, ELLs-local districts are carrying much of the weight. (There will be an article about funding at the district level in an upcoming issue.) "We are likely to see a lot more school finance lawsuits in the next years," said David Griffith, director of Government Affairs of the National Association of State Boards of Education, commenting on the increased pressure local schools are facing to meet NCLB and state standards without adequate funds.

The added costs to the district to educate ELLs were already visible in the Baker-Markham study, which stated that "state efforts to help local districts provide adequate programming opportunities for LEP children are often poorly conceived or applied." The report concluded that the burden of responsibility to pay for the education of this subgroup has increasingly been placed on local districts.

Editor's Note: An article on national 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.