A New ESEA: Bipartisanship Doesn’t Add Up to Much for DLLs

On Tuesday, Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray released their much anticipated bipartisan bill to revamp No Child Left Behind. So, how does Alexander and Murray’s Every Child Achieves Act stack up for dual language learners?

For starters, the bill preserves Title III, which is a designated funding stream to help states support the education of DLLs. However, the exact appropriation is not specified and veiled in the vague language of “such sums as may be necessary.” I’m betting that this “necessary” sum will fall somewhere around$737 million, falling short of the $775 million  requested by President Obama.  Unfortunately, what’s “necessary” likely won’t be determined by the actual cost of programs and services (or even by the growing number of English learners in our nation’s public schools). Rather, what’s “necessary” will be shaped by the amount of money that’s available.

States have long complained that Title III funds are insufficient to the need. In 2012, the District of Columbia received $778,577 to serve 5,546 English Learners. That amounted to about $140 per student. In a school with 10 ELs, what can $1400 buy? Maybe one professional development session?

Currently, Title III is allocated to states based on their share of English learners counted in the American Community Survey (ACS) not on state-level data.  The ACS relies on a sample rather than a straight count of students so it may either under-estimate or over-estimate the number of DLLs in the state. That means some states lose money and must stretch their Title III dollars quite thin. Alexander and Murray’s bill does specify that a combination of ACS and state-level data can be used to determine this number (but ultimately that decision is left up to the US Department of Education).

The bill also adds in new language about “incentives” for districts to implement policies and practices that could boost the instruction and achievement of English learners. It’s not clear what these incentives would be.  States could also give recognition (e.g. financial awards) to districts that demonstrate significant improvement in the achievement of ELs. But incentives work better when they’re tied to big dollars (consider that New York received $696,646,000 under Race to the Top). Title III is small potatoes.

Similar to Sen. Alexander’s first draft reauthorization bill, the new bill eliminates the accountability provisions of Title III, otherwise known as “annual measurable achievement objectives” (AMAOs). Admittedly, AMAOs are a weak mechanism of accountability. Districts that fail to meet them have to submit improvement plans to their State Education Agency (SEA) and that’s about it.  But that doesn’t mean their elimination is without its drawbacks.

Accountability is replaced with reporting. Districts that receive Title III funds must submit a report to their State Education Agency (SEA) at the end of every second fiscal year that includes a description of how they’ve spent the money and data on things like:

• the number/percentage of ELs who meet “state determined goals for progress;”
• the number of ELs who attain English Language Proficiency;
• and the number of ELs who exit EL status.

Similar to AMAOs, these data should help drive “improvements” in the programs and practices used to support ELs.

The shift to state reporting fits with the bill’s overall emphasis on providing states with greater autonomy in the design of their accountability systems and in the methods used to improve failing schools. While many in education are hailing the reduction of the federal role in accountability, I find myself wondering why. Many states (and districts) don’t have a strong track record of prioritizing the needs of English learners and other subgroups. Isn’t that why NCLB accountability provisions were instituted in the first place?

Need some evidence? First, take a look at NAEP data or state-level assessment data and you’ll find glaring gaps in performance between English learners and their native-English speaking peers. Consider: in 2012 the gap in 4th grade NAEP reading scores between ELs and non-ELs was 34 points and the average score of ELs has only increased by  four points!

Now, let’s look closer at a school district. Boston Public Schools, for instance, which has come under federal scrutiny for failing to adequately educate their English learners. The Boston Globe reported that in several schools EL students were either not receiving any specialized instruction or being taught by teachers lacking certification to teach English learners. Moreover, the school system has not been able to provide accurate data on whether their programs are complying with civil rights laws. That sounds like a capacity problem.

According to a 2008 research brief by the American Institutes for Research, capacity entails providing the necessary external staff, data, professional development, grant monies and expertise to support improvement. States’ capacity to support DLLs has already been constrained by “insufficient funding for EL services, limitations in their data systems, shortages of staff with EL expertise, and a lack of information on proven programs for serving ELs” as reported in the 2012 National Evaluation of Title III Implementation.

Most states have stretched their capacity to comply with the provisions of NCLB and to meet the demands of federal waivers. Republicans argue that granting states more autonomy will help ease this burden and provide needed flexibility to implement home-grown strategies for holding schools accountable and supporting school improvement. But that flexibility does nothing to solve the problem of capacity.

 

 "