eminent domain; fees and costs
Committee on Federal Mandates and Property Rights
Caucus and COW
As Engrossed and As Passed the House
As Transmitted to the Governor
HB 2064 revises the process for assessment, classification, reassessment and monitoring of pupils with a primary or home language other than English; establishes the 9-member Arizona English Language Learners Task Force (Task Force) charged with specified duties including developing and adopting research-based models of structured English immersion (SEI); requires school districts and charter schools to adopt at least one SEI model or develop an SEI program and submit SEI budget requests for English language learners (ELL) SEI programs; establishes 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 monitoring of school districts and charter schools for ELL programs; makes numerous appropriations; contains a legislative intent section, increases the ELL Group B weight in FY 2006-07; and makes numerous other changes to the statutes relating to ELLs.
In 1992, the Flores v. State of Arizona 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 Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were violated because the state failed to fund adequate language and academic instructional programs for at-risk students. The plaintiffs argued that the State’s failure regarding LEP programs was a violation of the federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA). The case went to trial in August 1999 in United States District Court.
In January 2000, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared Arizona’s LEP programs in violation of the EEOA. In August 2000, the parties entered into a consent decree that met the Court’s concern regarding program adequacy and nonresource issues, but did not address the question of funding adequacy. In October 2000, the Court ordered the State to conduct a cost study to determine the amount needed to conduct a successful LEP program.
Concurrently, the voters approved Proposition 203 in November 2000, which replaced the existing bilingual education laws with the requirement that all classes be taught in English, except that pupils who are classified as ELL, previously LEP, would be educated separately through a SEI program. SEI, as defined in statute through Proposition 203, means:
an English language acquisition process for young children in which nearly all classroom instruction is in English but with the curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning the language. Books and instructional materials are in English and all reading, writing, and subject matter are taught in English. Although teachers may use a minimal amount of the child's native language when necessary, no subject matter shall be taught in any language other than English, and children in this program learn to read and write solely in English. This educational methodology represents the standard definition of "sheltered English" or "structured English" found in educational literature.
In May 2001, the ADE released a cost study that identified per-pupil costs for non-English speaking pupils. In June 2001, the Court ordered the state to comply with an adequate ELL funding scheme by the end of any special session convened by the Legislature prior to January 31, 2002. During a special session in December 2001, the Legislature passed HB 2010 which increased the ELL Group B weight, provided additional monies for teacher training, compensatory instruction, instructional materials, monitoring, teacher bonuses and a K-3 literacy program and required an additional cost study be completed.
In January 2005, the Court set a deadline of April 30, 2005 or the end of the 2005 legislative session, whichever occurred last, for the State to comply with the 2000 judgment. In May of 2005, the Legislature passed HB 2718, which was vetoed. In response to plaintiffs’ motions for sanctions in December of 2005, the judge ordered financial penalties imposed against the state in the form of progressive daily fines until the State complies with the court judgment. In addition, the judge excluded ELL pupils from the Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) graduation requirement for the time being. The Legislature passed HB 2002 in a special session early in 2006, and SB 1198 during the regular session, which were additionally vetoed.
Assessment and Classification
· Replaces current statute relating to programs for ELLs.
· Requires the primary or home language for all new pupils who enroll in a school district or charter school to be identified in a manner prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Superintendent).
· Requires the English language proficiency of all pupils with a primary or home language other than English be assessed through English language proficiency exams using a process prescribed by the Superintendent. The test scores adopted by the Superintendent as indicating English language proficiency must be based on the test publisher’s designated scores. The ADE must annually request an appropriation to pay for the purchase of all language proficiency assessments, scoring and ancillary materials.
· Declares that a pupil must be classified an ELL and be enrolled in SEI or bilingual education if it is determined that the pupil is not English language proficient.
Arizona English Language Learners Task Force
· Establishes the 9-member Task Force within the ADE consisting of two members appointed each by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Governor, and three members appointed by the Superintendent. Members serve four year terms and must select a chairman from its membership. The ADE must provide adequate staff for the duties 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. The models must include specified factors, be the most cost-efficient models of SEI that meet all federal and state laws, be limited to programs for ELLs to participate in a SEI program not normally intended to exceed one year and be limited to a regular school day and regular school year. Instruction outside the regular school day and year must be provided through compensatory instruction which may be eligible for compensatory instruction funding. The Task Force must identify the minimum amount of English language development per day for all models. Additionally, the Task Force must develop separate models for the first year in which a pupil is classified as an ELL that includes a minimum of four hours per day on English language development.
· Submit the research-based models of SEI to the Legislature, the Governor and the State Board of Education (SBE). Additionally, the models must be submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) for review at least 30 days of adoption by the Task Force.
· Review models of research-based SEI annually and delete, add or modify the existing models. When adopting or modifying ELL programs, the Task Force must review and consider the information and data obtained as a result of the ADE’s ELL program monitoring.
· Establish a procedure to determine the incremental costs for the adopted research-based models of SEI.
· Establish a form for school districts and charter schools to determine the SEI incremental budget request amount. The maximum formula amount is the incremental costs of the adopted model minus all federal Title III monies and any other federal monies designated solely for the educational needs of ELLs, the portion of federal Title I, Title II A, impact aid and statutory desegregation monies determined by the ELL population as a percentage of the qualified population and the Group B ELL weight. The impact aid monies must be from unexpended impact aid monies after the school district has applied its impact aid monies for other allowable uses as permitted by state law. The difference is the budget request for monies from the SEI Fund. Beginning July 15, 2008, pupils who have been classified ELL after July 1, 2007 and who have been classified an ELL for more than two years are prohibited from being used in the calculation of incremental costs for school district and charter school SEI budget requests.
· Allows a school district or charter school to adopt 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 along with supporting documentation regarding the expected outcomes of the program on the school district’s or charter school’s ELL students to the Task Force for approval. Upon receiving the proposed program, the Task force may approve the proposed program, provide limited approval subject to specific stipulations prescribed by the State Board of Education or reject the proposed program and identify a Task Force approved model to adopt. School districts and charter schools must include a copy of the adopted ELL program in the annual report required.
· Requires the ADE, in conjunction with the Auditor General, to develop and adopt model forms to be used by school districts and charter schools for SEI budget requests.
· Requires each school district and charter school to:
· Select one or more Task Force-approved models of SEI for implementation on a school-by-school basis.
· Submit a SEI budget request on a school-by-school basis for a specific amount from the SEI Fund.
· Include in their SEI budget request the signature of specified persons that certifies that the information in the SEI budget request is true to the best of that person’s knowledge, has been calculated pursuant to the formula and that monies from the SEI Fund shall not be used to supplant any federal, state or local, including desegregation, monies used for ELLs as of February 23, 2006.
· Beginning July 1, 2007, submit a SEI budget request annually to the ADE by September 15. The ADE must verify the SEI budget request of each school district and charter school for accuracy and compliance, and must collect the SEI budget requests and submit them to the Legislature for funding from the SEI Fund at the same time as the ADE’s budget request.
Arizona Structured English Immersion Fund
· Establishes the SEI Fund administered by the ADE. ADE must annually request an appropriation for the purposes of the Fund. The ADE must distribute monies in the Fund to school districts and charter schools in an amount specified by the school district or charter school budget request.
· Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to attempt to obtain the maximum amount of federal funding available for ELL programs.
· Prohibits monies from the SEI Fund from being distributed for a pupil for more than two fiscal years.
· Requires each school district and charter school to establish a local level SEI Fund to receive monies from the Arizona SEI Fund. The local level SEI Fund must only be spent to provide instruction to ELLs. The Auditor General must modify the budget format, financial record requirements, accounting forms and financial report forms for these purposes. Additionally, the Auditor General, in consultation with the ADE, must provide support and guidance to assist school districts and charter schools in compliance. The Task Force and the JLBC must review the documents developed.
· Requires school districts and charter schools to use monies from the SEI Fund to supplement existing programs for ELLs. Monies must not be used to supplant available monies used to pay for the normal costs of conducting programs for English proficient students.
· Requires ELLs to be reassessed for the purpose of determining English language proficiency at least annually at the end of each school year through a process prescribed by the Superintendent.
· States that pupils who score at or above the English language proficiency test publisher’s designated score for English proficiency must be reclassified as English proficient. After reclassification, the pupil must be transferred to English language mainstream classrooms.
Former ELL Monitoring
· Requires the English language proficiency of each pupil previously classified as an ELL within the last two years to be tested annually at the end of the school year in the same manner as assessing for the first time. Pupils who fail to demonstrate English language proficiency must be classified as an ELL and be reenrolled in SEI, subject to parental consent, and may be provided compensatory instruction. The Superintendent must prescribe the manner in which pupils are reevaluated.
· Requires the SBE to determine the qualifications necessary for a provisional and full SEI endorsement.
· Allows teacher training not provided by a college or university to substitute for any course required for an SEI or bilingual education endorsement if:
· The SBE has reviewed the curriculum, textbooks, grading procedures and attendance policies and determined that the training is comparable in amount, scope and quality to a course offered by a college or university for a SEI or bilingual education endorsement.
· The training meets the professional teaching standards adopted by the SBE.
· The SBE has reviewed the qualifications of the instructor and determined that the instructor has sufficient experience to effectively conduct the training.
· Declares that the SBE must require all approved teacher training programs that provide a degree in education to require courses that are necessary to obtain a full SEI endorsement.
Statewide Compensatory Instruction Fund
· Establishes the Statewide Compensatory Instruction Fund (SCIF) administered by the ADE. The ADE must distribute monies in the SCIF to school districts and charter schools in an amount determined by the ADE for compensatory instruction costs.
· Requires school districts and charter schools to:
· Demonstrate to the ADE that the school district or charter school has established a satisfactory compensatory instruction program.
· Annually submit written compensatory instruction budget requests to the ADE by July 15 on a form developed by the ADE and signed by specified persons that the monies from the SCIF must not be used to supplant any federal, state or local, including desegregation, monies for ELLs that were budgeted for ELLs as of February 23, 2006. The written requests must include an analysis of compensatory instruction effectiveness. Monies from the SCIF must be used to supplement existing programs and must not be used to supplant any federal, state or local, including desegregation, monies used for compensatory instruction for ELLs as of February 23, 2006.
· Establish a local level compensatory instruction fund to receive SCIF monies. Monies in the local level compensatory instruction fund must only be expended on compensatory instruction. The Auditor General may modify the budget format, financial record requirements, accounting forms and financial report forms for these purposes. Additionally, the Auditor General, in consultation with the ADE, must provide support and guidance to assist school districts and charter schools in compliance. The Task Force and the JLBC must review the documents developed.
· Establishes the ADE Office of English Language Acquisition Services (Office) and requires the Office to:
· Develop guidelines for the monitoring of school districts and charter schools for the purpose of ensuring compliance with all federal and state laws regarding ELLs.
· In consultation with county school superintendents, develop regional programs to enhance all aspects of training for teachers and administrators.
· Publish ELL policy guidelines that include a list of relevant rules, regulations and statutes relating to ELL programs to notify school districts and charter schools of their responsibilities.
· Provide technical assistance to school districts and charter schools to implement SEI programs.
· Require each school district and charter school to annually submit a report to the ADE that includes the following information identified by grade level and by school:
· The total number of pupils classified as ELLs as verified by the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS).
· The number of pupils who are classified as ELLs for the first time as verified by the SAIS.
· The number of ELLs who achieved English proficiency in the past academic year and who have been reclassified as English proficient as verified by the SAIS.
· The number of pupils who are enrolled in each type of language acquisition program offered by the school district or charter school as verified by the SAIS.
· If requested by the ADE, the test data 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 an itemized list of all federal monies received by the ADE for ELLs, a list of how much of these monies were distributed to school districts on a district by district basis and the purposes for which these federal monies are designated.
· Submit an annual report to the Governor, the Legislature and the SBE that includes a detailed analysis of whether and to what extent pupils are benefiting academically from compensatory instruction and a comparison of the academic achievement of pupils before and after receiving compensatory instruction.
· Present a detailed annual summary of all ELL programs and funding at a public meeting of the SBE.
· Present a summary of information relating to the demonstrated success of schools and school districts at achieving English proficiency for ELLs.
· Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to direct the Office:
· To monitor each year at least 12 school districts or charter schools from the 50 school districts or charter schools in this 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.
· To monitor each year at least ten school districts or charter schools that are not included in the 50 school districts or charter schools with the highest number of ELLs.
· To monitor each year at least ten school districts or charter schools that are not required to provide instruction for ELLs for a majority of their grade levels.
· That the school districts and charter schools listed above must be chosen in the ADE’s sole discretion based on the ADE’s review of the reports submitted by school districts and charter schools.
· To select a random sample of 300 ELLs monthly to determine how many of the sample:
· Can read the randomly ordered alphabet in 30 seconds or less.
· Can read a randomly sorted list of 30 single-syllable words in one minute or less.
· Requires ADE monitoring to be on-site and to include classroom observations, curriculum reviews, faculty interviews, student records, a review of ELL programs and an analysis of programmatic effectiveness. The ADE must determine compliance with federal or state law and issue a report within 45 days after completing the monitoring. Within 60 days of the ADE report, the school district or charter school must submit a corrective action plan to the ADE that sets forth the steps to be taken to correct the deficiencies noted in the report. Within 30 days of receiving the corrective action plan , the ADE must review and may require changes to the plan, then return the plan to the school district or charter school. Within 30 days of receiving the corrective action plan back from the ADE, the school district or charter school must implement the measures.
· Requires the ADE to conduct a follow-up evaluation of the school district or charter school within one year after the date of issuing the changed corrective action plan. If the ADE finds continued noncompliance during the follow-up evaluation, the school district or charter school must be referred to the SBE for determination of noncompliance for the purposes of continuing to receive SEI Fund monies. A school district or charter school determined to be noncompliant shall not reduce the amount of funds spent on its ELLs as a result of its loss of SEI Fund monies because of continued noncompliance. The ADE must continue monitoring school districts or charter schools that the SBE has determined are noncompliant and are no longer receiving SEI Fund monies to ensure that the school district or charter school has not reduced the amount of funds spent on their ELL programs as a result of noncompliance.
Auditor General Duties
· Requires the Auditor General to:
· Modify the Annual Financial Report in order to carry out these provisions.
· Biennially audit the overall effectiveness of the ELL program based on performance based outcome measurements and increased English proficiency.
· Review the mobility of English proficient students and ELLs.
· Conduct financial audits on school districts that are monitored as provided. The audits must include a review of the SEI budget requests and the SCIF budget requests. The Auditor General may conduct financial audits on randomly selected school districts that are not currently being monitored as provided.
· Determine whether school districts that receive grants from the SEI Fund and the SCIF are in compliance with specified state law through performance audits conducted by the school-wide audit teams.
· Appropriates $10,000,000 in FY 2006-07 from the state General Fund to the ADE for the SCIF. Exempts the appropriation from lapsing.
· Appropriates $2,555,000 in FY 2005-06 and $4,610,000 in FY 2006-07 from the state General Fund to the ADE for statutory duties and for the costs of providing English language proficiency assessments, scoring and ancillary materials to school districts and charter schools. Allows the ADE to hire staff or contract out with a third party for specified duties. Additionally, the ADE may use a portion of these monies to contract with one or more private attorneys to provide legal services in connection with the Flores v. State of Arizona case. Exempts the appropriations from lapsing.
· Appropriates $2,500,000 in FY 2006-07 from the state General Fund to the Auditor General for specified duties. Exempts the appropriation from lapsing.
· Appropriates $14,300,000 in FY 2006-07 from the state General Fund to the ADE for distribution to school districts and charter schools for the increased Group B ELL weight.
· Requires the ADE to include the results of ELL English language proficiency tests, reassessment tests and reevaluation tests in the school achievement profiles.
· Declares that the new sections relating to English Language Education do not relieve school districts and charter schools from ensuring that they are in compliance with the requirements of federal and state law.
· Increases the Group B ELL weight in FY 2006-07.
· Defines the terms incremental costs and compensatory instruction.
· States that if a school district is levying a primary property tax on February 23, 2006 and using those monies to administer an ELL program to remedy alleged or proven discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the school district may spend those monies to remedy a violation of the Equal Education Act of 1974, but does not allow a school district to levy a primary property tax for violations of the Equal Education Act of 1974 in the absence of an alleged or proven discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
· Contains an initial SEI budget request deadline of December 1, 2006 for FY 2007-08.
· Contains an initial compensatory instruction budget request deadline of July 15, 2006.
· Contains a legislative intent section.
· Contains a conditional enactment section.
· Makes technical and conforming changes.
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
Forty-seventh Legislature Analyst Initials _______
Second Regular Session February 27, 2006
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------