House of Representatives
HB2064
significant domain; Fees and Costs
(NOW: English learners)
Sponsors: Representatives Gray C, Burges, Pearce, et al.
HB 2064 revises the process for assessment, placement, reassessment and monitoring of students with a primary or first language other than English; establishes the 9-person ArizonaEnglish Language Learners Task Force (Task Force) charged with specific responsibilities, including the development and deployment of research-based Structured English Immersion (SEI) models; Requires that school districts and charter schools adopt at least one SEI model or develop an SEI program and submit SEI budget requests for SEI programs for English learners (ELL); sets out duties for the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) and the Auditor General; establishes the Arizona Structured English Immersion Fund (SEI Fund) and the Statewide Compensatory Instruction Fund (SCIF); codifies some oversight of school districts and charter schools for ELL programs; makes numerous means; includes a section on legal intentions, increases ELL Group B weighting in fiscal year 2006-07; and makes numerous other amendments to the Articles of Incorporation relating to ELLs.
Story
1992 became theFlores vs. Arizona StateThe lawsuit was filed in federal court by parents of children enrolled in the Nogales Unified School District. The plaintiffs alleged that the civil rights of students with limited English proficiency (LEP) were violated because the state failed to fund adequate language and academic instruction programs for at-risk students. Plaintiffs argued that the state's failure to provide LEP programs violated the Federal Equal Opportunity in Education Act (EEOA). The case was tried in August 1999 in United States District Court.
In January 2000, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding Arizona's LEP programs in violation of the EEOA. In August 2000, the parties agreed to a consent order that addressed the court's concerns about the adequacy of the program and non-resource issues, but did not address the issue of adequacy of funding. In October 2000, the court ordered the state to conduct a cost study to determine the amount needed to run a successful LEP program.
At the same time, in November 2000, voters approved Proposal 203, which replaced the existing bilingual education laws with a requirement that all classes be taught in English, except that students classified as ELL, formerly LEP, would be separately by an SEI program would be taught. SEI, as defined in the Act by Proposition 203, means:
an English language acquisition process for young children in which almost all instruction is in English, but the curriculum and presentation are designed for children learning the language. Books and course materials are in English and all reading, writing and course materials are taught in English. Although teachers may use a minimal amount of the child's native language if necessary, no course material may be taught in any language other than English, and the children learn to read and write in this language program entirely in English. This pedagogical methodology represents the standard definition of 'protected English' or 'structured English' found in the pedagogical literature.
In May 2001, the ADE published a cost study that determined the cost per student for non-English speaking students. In June 2001, the court ordered the state to comply with an appropriate ELL funding scheme until the end of a special session called by the legislature before January 31, 2002. During a special session in December 2001, the Legislature passed HB 2010, which added ELL Group B weight, subject to providing additional funds for teacher training, supplemental tuition, teaching materials, supervision, teacher bonuses, a K-3 literacy program, and completing an additional cost study must.
In January 2005, the court gave the state a deadline of April 30, 2005, or the end of the 2005 legislative session, whichever occurred most recently, to comply with the 2000 ruling. In response to plaintiffs' requests for sanctions in December 2005, the judge ordered financial penalties to be imposed on the state in the form of progressive daily fines until the state complies with the court's ruling. In addition, the judge suspended ELL students from the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standard (AIMS) graduation requirement for the time being. The Legislature passed HB 2002 in a special session in early 2006 and SB 1198 during the regular session, which was additionally vetoed.
provisions
Rating and Classification
·Replaces the current law relating to programs for ELLs.
·Requires that the primary or native language for all new students enrolling in a school district or charter school must be identified in a manner prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Superintendent).
·Requires that the English proficiency of all students with a primary or first language other than English be assessed through English language proficiency tests using a procedure prescribed by the Superintendent. The test scores accepted by the Superintendent as an indication of English proficiency must be based on the scores established by the test publisher. The ADE must apply for an annual subsidy for the purchase of all language certificates, assessment and support materials.
·Explains that a student must be classified as ELL and enrolled in SEI or bilingual education if the student is determined to have no proficiency in the English language.
ArizonaTask force for English learners
·Establishes the 9-person task force within the ADE, consisting of two members each appointed by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House and the Governor, and three members appointed by the Superintendent. Members serve four-year terms and must elect a Chair from among their membership. The ADE must provide adequate staff for the tasks of the task force. The task force must:
·By September 1, 2006, develop and adopt research-based models of SEI programs for use by school districts and charter schools. Models must include specified factors, be the most cost-effective SEI models that comply with all federal and state laws, be limited to programs for ELLs to participate in an SEI program, typically for no more than one year, and to the regular school day and the regular school limited its year. Tuition outside of the regular school day and year must be provided through compensatory tuition, which may be eligible for compensatory tuition funding. The task force must set the minimum amount of English language development per day for all models. In addition, the task force must develop separate models for the first year in which a student is classified as an ELL, which includes a minimum of four hours per day of English language development.
·Submit the research-based SEI models to the Legislature, the Governor, and the State Board of Education (SBE). In addition, the models must be submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) for review at least 30 days after adoption by the task force.
·Review research-based SEI models annually and delete, add, or modify existing models. When adopting or amending ELL programs, the Task Force must review and take into account the information and data received as a result of the ADE's ELL program monitoring.
·Establish a procedure for determining the additional costs for the adopted research-based SEI models.
·Complete a form for school districts and charter schools to determine the amount of the SEI incremental budget request. The formula maximum is the additional cost of the adopted model minus all Federal Title III funds and all other Federal funds intended solely for the educational needs of ELLs, the portion of Federal Title I, Title II A, Impact Allowance and Statutory Waiver funds required by the ELL population to be determined as a percentage of the qualifying population and Group B ELL weight. Impact Aid funds must come from unspent Impact Aid funds after the school district uses its Impact Aid funds for other permitted uses as permitted by state law. The difference is the budget request for funds from the SEI Fund. Beginning July 15, 2008, students classified as ELL after July 1, 2007 and who have been classified as ELL for more than two years are prohibited from being used in the calculation of the excess cost of SEI budget applications by school districts and charter schools become.
Optional programs
·Allows a school district or charter school to implement an ELL program that is not based on a model adopted by the task force. The school district or charter school must first submit the proposed program to the task force for approval, along with supporting documentation regarding the expected results of the program for the district's or charter school's ELL students. Upon receipt of the proposed program, the task force may approve the proposed program, grant limited approval subject to specific provisions mandated by the State Board of Education, or reject the proposed program and designate a task force-approved model for acceptance. School districts and charter schools must include a copy of the approved ELL program in the required annual report.
budget requests
·Requires that the ADE, in conjunction with the Auditor General, develop and adopt model forms for use by school districts and charter schools for SEI budget applications.
·Requires each school district and charter school to:
·Select one or more task force-approved SEI models for implementation on a school-specific basis.
·Submit an SEI budget request for a specific amount from the SEI fund for each school.
·Include in your SEI budget application the signatures of certain individuals who certify that, to the best of that individual's knowledge, the information in the SEI budget application is accurate, was calculated according to the formula, and that monies from the SEI fund may not be used to: Federal, state or local, including desegregation, funds used for ELLs as of February 23, 2006.
·Beginning July 1, 2007, submit an SEI budget application to the ADE by September 15 annually. The ADE must review each school district's and charter school's SEI budget application for accuracy and compliance, and collect and submit the SEI budget applications to the Legislature for funding from the SEI fund concurrently with the ADE's budget application.
ArizonaStructured English immersion fund
·Establishes the SEI fund managed by the ADE. ADE must apply annually for a grant for the purposes of the fund. The ADE must distribute funds from the fund to districts and charter schools in an amount specified in the district or charter school budget application.
·Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to seek the maximum amount of federal funding available for ELL programs.
·Prohibits the distribution of funds from the SEI Fund to a student for more than two fiscal years.
·Requires that each school district and charter school establish a local SEI fund to receive funding from the Arizona SEI Fund. The local SEI fund may only be spent to direct ELL. The AuditorGeneral must change the budget format, financial record requirements, accounting forms and financial report forms for these purposes. In addition, the Auditor General, in consultation with the ADE, must provide support and guidance to help school districts and charter schools comply. The task force and the JLBC must review the documents produced.
·Requires school districts and charter schools to use funds from the SEI Fund to supplement existing programs for ELLs. Funds may not be used to replace available funds used to pay the normal costs of running programs for English language students.
RevaluationELLs
·Requires that ELLs be reassessed at least annually at the end of each school year through a Superintendent-mandated process to determine English proficiency.
·Specifies that students who achieve at least the English Proficiency score set by the publisher for English Language Proficiency must be reassessed as English Proficiency. After reclassification, the student must be placed in a mainstream English language classroom.
Former ELL monitoring
·Requires that every student rated ELL within the previous two years has their English proficiency tested annually at the end of the school year in the same manner as when they were initially assessed. Students who fail to demonstrate English proficiency must be classified as ELL and re-enrolled in SEI, subject to parental consent, and may receive compensatory tuition. The superintendent must dictate the manner in which students are re-evaluated.
teacher training
·Requires the SBE to determine the qualifications required for a preliminary and full SEI endorsement.
·Allows teacher training not offered by a college or university to replace a course required for an SEI or Bilingual Education Acceptance when:
·SBE reviewed the syllabus, textbooks, assessment procedures and attendance policies and found that the training is comparable in scope, scope and quality to a course offered by a college or university for an SEI or bilingual education certification.
·The training corresponds to the professional teaching standards adopted by the SBE.
·The SBE has verified the instructor's qualifications and found that the instructor has sufficient experience to conduct the training effectively.
·Explains that the SBE must require all accredited teacher education programs that offer an educational degree to require courses required to obtain a full SEI endorsement.
Statewide Compensation Tuition Fund
·Establishes the Statewide Compensatory Instruction Fund (SCIF) administered by the ADE. The ADE must allocate funds in the SCIF to school districts and charter schools in an amount determined by the ADE for compensating tuition costs.
·Required of school districts and charter schools:
·Demonstrate to the ADE that the school district or charter school has established a satisfactory compensatory teaching program.
·Submit to the ADE annually by July 15, on a form developed by the ADE and signed by designated individuals, written budget requests for offsetting instructions that the funds shall not be used by the SCIF to raise any federal, state or local funds for ELLs that were budgeted for ELLs beginning February 23, 2006. Written requests must include an analysis of the effectiveness of compensatory instruction. Funds from SCIF must be used to supplement existing programs and not be used to replace federal, state, or local funds, including desegregation, funds used since February 23, 2006 for compensatory instruction were used for ELLs.
·Set up a local level equalization fund to receive SCIF funds. Money from the local compensatory tuition fund may only be spent on compensatory tuition. The Auditor General may change the budget format, financial record requirements, accounting forms and financial report forms for these purposes. In addition, the Auditor General, in consultation with the ADE, must provide support and guidance to help school districts and charter schools comply. The Task Force and the JLBC must review the documents developed.
ADE tasks
·Sets up the ADE Office of English Language Acquisition Services (Office) and prompts the Office:
·Develop policies for monitoring school districts and charter schools to ensure compliance with all federal and state laws related to ELLs.
·In consultation with district school boards, develop regional programs to improve all aspects of teacher and administrator training.
·Publish ELL policies that provide a list of relevant rules, regulations, and bylaws related to ELL programs to inform school districts and charter schools of their responsibilities.
·Provide technical assistance to school districts and charter schools to implement SEI programs.
·Each school district and charter school is required to submit an annual report to the ADE that includes the following information by grade level and school:
·The total number of students classified as ELLs as verified by the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS).
·The number of students being classified as ELLs for the first time, as verified by the SAI.
·The number of ELLs who attained proficiency in English in the past academic year and who were assessed as English speakers after review by the SAIS.
·The number of students enrolled in each type of language acquisition program offered by the school district or charter school, as verified by the SAI.
·At the request of the ADE, the test data will be used to determine English proficiency.
·Determine the mobility of ELLs within the same school district and to other school districts and charter schools through the SAIS.
·Submit an annual report to the JLBC that includes a detailed list of all federal funds received by the ADE for ELLs, a list of how much of those funds have been distributed to school districts on a school district basis, and the purposes for which those federal funds are intended.
·Submit an annual report to the Governor, the Legislature and the SBE that includes a detailed analysis of whether and to what extent students are benefiting academically from compensatory tuition and a comparison of students' academic performance before and after receiving compensatory tuition.
·Present a detailed annual summary of all ELL programs and funding at an SBE public meeting.
·Present a summary of information related to the proven success of schools and school districts in achieving English proficiency for ELLs.
monitoring
·Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to head the office:
·Each year, monitor at least 12 school districts or charter schools out of the 50 school districts or charter schools in that state with the highest number of ELLs. The ADE must monitor all 50 school districts or charter schools with the highest number of ELLs in Arizona at least once every four years.
·Monitor at least 10 school districts or charter schools each year that are not in the top 50 school districts or charter schools with the highest number of ELLs.
·To oversee at least ten school districts or charter schools each year that are not required to provide instruction in ELLs for the majority of their grade levels.
·That the school districts and charter schools listed above must be selected in the sole discretion of the ADE based on the ADE's review of reports submitted by the school districts and charter schools.
·To select a random sample of 300 ELLs monthly to determine how many in the sample:
·Can read the randomized alphabet in 30 seconds or less.
·Can read a randomly sorted list of 30 monosyllabic words in a minute or less.
·Requires that ADE monitoring be on-site and include classroom observations, curriculum reviews, faculty interviews, student records, a review of ELL programs, and an analysis of program effectiveness. The ADE must determine compliance with federal or state law and produce a report within 45 days of the completion of monitoring. Within 60 days of the ADE report, the school district or charter school must submit to the ADE a corrective action plan outlining the steps to be taken to correct the deficiencies identified in the report. Within 30 days of receiving the corrective action plan, the ADE must review the plan and request changes to it as necessary, and then return the plan to the school district or charter school. Within 30 days of receiving the corrective action plan from the ADE, the school district or charter school must implement the corrective action.
·Requires the ADE to conduct a follow-up assessment of the school district or charter school within one year of the date of publication of the revised corrective action plan. If the ADE finds persistent noncompliance during follow-up evaluation, the school district or charter school must be referred to the SBE for noncompliance determination in order to continue receiving SEI funds. A school district or charter school that has been determined to be noncompliant may not reduce funds spent on its ELLs due to the loss of funds from the SEI fund due to continued noncompliance. The ADE must continue to monitor school districts or charter schools that have been determined by the SBE to be noncompliant and are no longer receiving funds from the SEI Fund to ensure that the school district or charter school is not reversing funds spent on their ELL programs due to noncompliance have shortened.
Auditor general duties
·Required of the Auditor General:
·Amend the annual financial report to implement these provisions.
·Biennially, review the overall effectiveness of the ELL program based on performance-based outcome measurements and improved English proficiency.
·Check the mobility of English speaking students and ELLs.
·BehaviorSchool district financial audits monitored as intended. The reviews must include a review of the SEI budget requirements and the SCIF budget requirements. The Auditor General may conduct financial audits on randomly selected school districts that are currently not being overseen as intended.
·Determine whether school districts that receive grants from the SEI Fund and SCIF are complying with specific state laws through performance assessments conducted by school-wide assessment teams.
Middle
·Provides $10,000,000 in FY2006-07 from state GeneralFund to ADE for SCIF. Frees the appropriation from decay.
·Provides $2,555,000 in FY2005-06 and $4,610,000 in FY2006-07 from the State General Fund to the ADE for statutory obligations and the cost of providing English language proficiency, assessment and support materials to school districts and charter schools. Allows ADE to hire staff or engage a third party to perform specific tasks. In addition, ADE may use some of these funds to contract with one or more private attorneys to provide legal services related to theFlores vs. Arizona StateCase. Frees funds from expiration.
·Provides $2,500,000 from the State General Fund to the Auditor General in FY2006-07 for specific assignments. Frees the appropriation from decay.
·Provides $14,300,000 in FY2006-07 from the state GeneralFund to the ADE for distribution to school districts and charter schools for the increased weight of the B ELL group.
Other
·Requires the ADE to include ELL English language test, reassessment test, and reassessment test scores in school achievement profiles.
·Explains that the new sections regarding English language instruction do not exempt school districts and charter schools from ensuring they meet the requirements of federal and state laws.
·Increases Group B ELL weight in FY 2006-07.
·Defines the termsadditional costsAndcompensation instruction.
·States that if a school district collects a primary property tax on February 23, 2006 and uses those funds to administer an ELL program to remedy alleged or established discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the school district collects those Spending funds to a breach of the Equal Education Act 1974 does not permit a school district to levy a property tax for violations of the Equal Education Act 1974 where there is no alleged or established discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 available.
·Includes an initial SEI budget application deadline of December 1, 2006 for fiscal year 2007-08.
·Includes a July 15, 2006 budget request deadline for compensatory instructions.
·Includes a Legislative Intent section.
·Includes a conditional enactment section.
·Makes technical and compliant changes.
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
47th Legislature AnalystInitialen _______
Second Ordinary Meeting February 27, 2006
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------