Hello Yoel,
Thank you for your patience. I enjoyed a large family Christmas
dinner at my home yesterday. I hope you are enjoying the holidays as
well.
I have been able to come up with some data that I believe addresses
your questions. However, if there are any topics for which you would
like additional information, please use the “request for answer
clarification” feature prior to rating the answer. I would be happy
to continue working with you.
Googlenut
I will begin with some brief background information.
President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) into
law on January 8, 2002. NCLB requires that states create their own
standards for what a child should know and learn for all grades in
math and reading (and in science by the 2005-06 school year). States
must test every student's progress toward these standards. Beginning
in the 2002-03 school year, schools must administer tests in each of
three grade spans: grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 10-12 in all
schools. Beginning in the 2005-06 school year, tests must be
administered every year in grades 3 through 8 in math and reading.
Beginning in the 2007-08 school year, science achievement must also be
tested. (Ref. U.S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind
Website, http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/next/overview/index.html).
Title III of NCLB addresses Language Instruction For Limited English
Proficient (LEP) and Immigrant Students. Under NCLB Title III the
academic progress of every child will be tested in reading and math,
including those learning English. All English language learners will
be tested annually to measure how well they are learning English. They
can be tested in their native language for the first three years.
After three consecutive years in school, the children must me taught
in English. (References. http://www.nclb.gov/media/news/111302.html,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html#6)
Under Title III, grants are provided by the Office of English Language
Acquisition (OELA) to State Educational Agencies (SEAs). The purpose
of these grants is to:
“- Improve the education of limited English proficient (LEP) children
and youth by assisting them to learn English and meet challenging
State academic content and student academic achievement standards
- Provide enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children
and youth”
(http://www.ed.gov/offices/OELA/formulafacts.html)
The No Child Left Behind fact sheet about English Fluency
(http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/start/facts/english.html) states the
following:
“No Child Left Behind provides $665 million in 2002 to help English
language learners acquire English language skills. This is a 49
percent increase over 2001 and includes $100 million to prepare
teachers of English language learners.”
The grants are distributed based on a formula determined by the number
of LEP and immigrant children and youth in the state. The state
allots subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs). The level of
each subgrant is based on the number of LEP and immigrant children and
youth in the LEAs. Regarding NCLB Title III,
Educational Testing Service
(http://www.ets.org/aboutets/child/title03a.html) states the
following:
“The new law consolidates the Bilingual Education Act and several
other grant programs serving English Language Proficient (LEP)
students with an authorization of $750 million. An increase of nearly
50 percent over 2001 levels, to $665 million, was appropriated for FY
'02.”
They go on to say:
“Funds are provided to states according to a formula - 80 percent
based on the number of LEP children in the state and 20 percent on the
number of immigrant children and youth in the state.”
I was unable to locate a database that included the grant allocations
for all states. I was able to find the 2002 – 2003 Title III grant
allocations for eight states:
New York, $34,824,294
(New York State Education Department, Local Allocations for Title III
Limited English Proficient Students, 2002-2003, Preliminary,
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/deputy/nclb/nclbtitleIIILEPallocs.htm)
California, $102,280,908.00
(California Department of Education, Directory of Title III LEP
Student Program Participants, 2002-03,
http://www.cde.ca.gov/el/title3/lepdirectories.html)
I found the following additional information regarding Title III grant
amount awarded to California at the California Department of Education
website:
“The USDE determines the grant award to the states by using a formula
based on the number of LEP and immigrant students enrolled in the
state. California annually collects data on LEP students through the
Language Census R-30 Report and on immigrant students through the
Student National Origin Report (SNOR). Based on California's data, CDE
received a Title III grant apportionment of approximately $117 million
for FY2002-2003. Ninety-five percent will be allocated as subgrants to
eligible LEAs serving LEP and immigrant students.”
Oregon, $2,895,693
(Oregon Department of Education, Title III Final District Allocations
(Microsoft Excel file), http://www.ode.state.or.us/iasa/)
New Jersey, $9,830,126
(New Jersey Department of Education, No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
FY 2003, Allocation Tables as of 8/15/02 (Microsoft Excel file,
http://www.state.nj.us/njded/grants/entitlement/nclb/)
Maine, $325,000
(Maine Department of Education, Title III Grantees Under No Child Left
Behind: 2002-03, http://www.state.me.us/education/esl/NCLBGrantees.htm)
Nebraska, $1,533,613
(Nebraska Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Grants in
Nebraska, http://www.nde.state.ne.us/nclbgrants.htm)
Massachusetts, $816,200
(Massachusetts Department of Education, Grants and Other Financial
Assistance Programs: FY2003, Title III: English Language Acquisition
and Academic Achievement Program for Immigrant Students,
http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/grants/grants03/rfp/185.html)
Oklahoma, No total available
(Oklahoma State Department of Education,
FY 02-03 Final Title III LEP Subgrant (pdf format) Final allocation
amounts by school district,
http://title3.sde.state.ok.us/bilingual/LEP%20Final%20Allocation.pdf;
FY 02-03 Final Title III Immigrant Subgrant (pdf format) Final
allocation amounts by school district,
http://title3.sde.state.ok.us/bilingual/Immigrant%20Final%20Allocation.pdf)
It is possible that the grants received by the states for NCLB Title
III do not fully cover the actual expenditure that will be required to
meet the Title III requirements. I was unable to find any data to
confirm this. I did however find some documentation from Vermont
related to Governor Howard Dean’s consideration as to whether Vermont
would accept or reject the NCLB funding since it was far short of the
actual cost required to retool the state’s education assessments to
meet the federal education requirements. For details, see the
following references:
Education World, “Vermont Governor Considers Rejecting Federal Funds”
by Ellen R. Delisio, 5/9/2002
http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/issues313.shtml
“State will accept federal funding for education”, July 11, 2002, By
Krista Larson The Associated Press
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/49828.html
Vermont Society for the Study of Education: Policy Discussion Paper
The Federal "No Child Left Behind" Law: Should Vermont Take the
Money?, By William J. Mathis, October 22, 2002
http://www.aasa.org/issues_and_insights/ESEA/VT_NCLB_Cost-Benefit_Analysis_10-22.pdf
I found some additional information related to funds for English
language proficiency education:
Education Week, January 17, 2001, “New York City Modifies Bilingual
Education”, By Mary Ann Zehr
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=18biling.h20
“Several board members said adequately financing the plan would be key
to its success. The chancellor has estimated it would cost $75
million, but Mr. Giuliani has promised only $9 million to support
English classes outside the regular school day. Mr. Hamer expressed
reservations about approving what he characterized as an "unfunded
mandate." He said he was lobbying for the board to scale back the
number of recommendations or to determine those that would be phased
in first.”
Education Week, November 20, 2002, “Texas Teachers Sought for
Bilingual, Gifted Training”, By Mary Ann Zehr
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=12biling.h22
“With the help of a $1.5 million federal grant, Southern Methodist
University in Dallas is starting an unusual scholarship program that
will train teachers in both bilingual education and gifted education.”
Some people believe that NCLB is somewhat in contrast with recent
trends to replace bilingual education programs with one-year English
immersion programs. In an article appearing at the website of
EagleForum.com, a volunteer organization started by conservative
Phyllis Schlafly (http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2002/oct02/02-10-23.shtml),
the following statements were made regarding this topic:
“Arizona's voters dumped bilingual education by passing Proposition
203 in November 2000 with a majority of 63 to 37 percent. As he did in
1998 with California's initiative, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Ron Unz
led the charge and provided much of the financing to pass the measure.
The Bush Administration, however, countered this popular trend by
actually increasing funding for the bilingual boondoggle. Bush's
famous "No Child Left Behind" Act more than doubled the federal
appropriation for bilingual education: $750 million in FY 2002 and
"such sums as may be necessary for each of the five succeeding fiscal
years." “
One year “English Immersion” laws, such as Question 2 passed in
November 2002 in Massachusetts, replace bilingual education in schools
with a law requiring that English learners are educated through a
sheltered English immersion program in which all subjects are taught
in English, normally not lasting more than one year.
Regarding funding, Question 2 states:
“…a sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) per year shall be spent
for the purpose of providing funding for free or subsidized programs
of adult English language instruction to parents or other members of
the community who pledge to provide personal English language tutoring
to Massachusetts school children who are English learners.” (Ref.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
http://www.state.ma.us/sec/ele/elebq02/bq022.htm)
However, some believe that the actual costs of implementing Question 2
will be significantly higher. An article at BostonChannel.com
(WCVB-TV Boston), (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/middaycallin/1771061/detail.html),
“Payzant Preparing For Bilingual Switch, Superintendent Ready To Move
Ahead”, November 6, 2002, states the following:
“Boston school Superintendent Thomas Payzant said that he's ready to
move ahead with overhauling bilingual education in city schools.
"There are many challenges ahead," Payzant said.
Among the challenges for the Boston school district is finding the $15
million the superintendent says it will take to implement English
immersion at a time when school department budgets are facing serious
cutbacks.
"Based on the cost of professional development for basically all of
our teachers, the cost of acquisition of new materials, and the
particular training of people who are going to do the immersion
program, we could see a bill as high as $15 million in the first
year," Payzant said.”
Arizona’s law to end bilingual education, Proposition 203, passed in
2000, as did California’s Proposition 227 in 1998.
The website of the National Conference of State Legislatures provides
a fiscal impact summary of Arizona’s Proposition 203 in which they
state:
“Under current law, school districts receive extra funding from the
state for "English learners" without a specific time limit. Because
the Proposition would limit the amount of time that pupils could
remain eligible for additional state funding for "English learners,"
the Proposition is expected to lead to state savings. The amount of
the savings is difficult to predict in advance as it depends on the
number of pupils who learn English more quickly in the immersion
classes. In addition, it is unclear how federal law would affect the
transfer of students out of the immersion classes. The maximum state
savings would be as high as $20.3 million in 2004 if all English
learners become proficient in English within a year, although that
outcome is unlikely.
An additional fiscal impact could occur if school districts had to
revamp their curricula, staff assignments, and operating procedures in
order to comply with the Proposition. Since it would alter neither the
state funding formula for public schools nor laws that "cap" school
district expenditures, any additional costs would require a
reallocation of existing school district resources.”
California’s Proposition 227 provides funding for “Community-Based
English Tutoring. Article 4 states:
“Commencing with the fiscal year in which this initiative is enacted
and for each of the nine fiscal years following thereafter, a sum of
fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) per year is hereby appropriated
from the General Fund for the purpose of providing additional funding
for free or subsidized programs of adult English language instruction
to parents or other members of the community who pledge to provide
personal English language tutoring to California school children with
limited English proficiency.”
(California Secretary of State Primary 1998 Voter Guide,
http://primary98.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/227text.htm)
Amendment 31, Colorado’s 2002 English immersion amendment, and
Oregon's 2001 "Sheltered English Immersion" Bill SB 919 did not pass.
However, Colorado was awarded a $9.3 million Department of Education
grant to overhaul its bilingual education program. According to the
Denver Post (“Grant funds bilingual overhaul, More training to be
offered to teachers”, By Monte Whaley, Denver Post Education Writer,
Thursday, November 14, 2002,
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E11583%7E989239%7E,00.html):
“The state will use a $9.3 million federal grant to overhaul how
English-acquisition programs in elementary and secondary schools are
taught. Colorado will enlist the state's universities and colleges to
train new and veteran teachers in new strategies, as well as
supporting low-performing schools with experts in the field.”
The article goes on to say:
“About $2.5 million of the grant will be used at four community
colleges and eight four-year institutions - including the University
of Denver, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and the
University of Northern Colorado - to train new teachers and to run
in-service classes for veteran teachers.”
Regarding NCLB testing, a Thomas B. Fordham Foundation report (“No
Child Left Behind: What Will It Take?, Papers Prepared For A
Conference Sponsored By The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation”, February
2002, http://www.edexcellence.net/NCLBconference/NCLBreport.pdf), the
following is stated:
“Is the Market Ready?
Directly related to the question of state capacity is the capacity of
the testing industry.
One of education’s dirty little secrets (made less secret last spring
by a series of investigative reports by The New York Times) is that
four major publishing companies have a virtual monopoly on the state
testing market. While a few smaller firms have made some inroads over
the last several years, the “big four” dominate this $700 million a
year industry, creating and administering the tests in most states.
This raises some urgent questions: do these few companies have the
capacity to develop over 200 new tests in a very short period of time?
The normal cycle for creating a new assessment in just one state is
2-3 years. This now needs to happen in two subject areas in multiple
grade levels in at least 34 states! In order to meet this demand, will
the companies be forced to sacrifice their own (variable) standards of
quality? Will they end up recycling old test questions and putting
together hasty processes for creating new questions, thereby lowering
the quality and sophistication of the assessments?”
Specifically related to NCLB language proficiency testing, an
Education Week article, “States Scramble to Rewrite
Language-Proficiency Exams”, December 4, 2002, By Lynn Olson
(http://www.edweek.com/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=14lep.h22&keywords=no%20child%20left%20behind)
makes the following comments:
“As early as this week, the federal government was expected to award
grants of up to $2 million each to states working to improve their
testing systems. At least three consortia of states are applying for a
chunk of the $17 million available under the "enhanced-assessment
grants" competition to design better tests for English- language
learners.
In addition, California and New York are preparing to unveil new
language-development tests of their own, while Massachusetts officials
hoped to announce a request for proposals late last month.”
The article goes on to say:
“A number of language-proficiency tests already exist, including the
Language Assessment Scales from CTB/McGraw-Hill, and the
Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey, from Riverside
Publishing/Houghton-Mifflin.”
They go on further to say:
“California, an early leader among the states, has been working with
CTB/McGraw-Hill to write the California English Language Development
Test since 1997. The state is revising the exam to make it easier to
administer and hopes to have it in schools by June.”
For more information regarding English Proficiency testing see the
following references:
“TASA'S English Proficiency Test Mandated in Missouri”, June 25, 2002,
PRNewswire-FirstCall
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m4PRN/2002_June_25/87733461/p1/article.jhtml?term=%2B%22no+child+left+behind%22+%2B%22title+III%22)
The Investor Relations Company, Touchstone Applied Science Associates,
Inc. (TASA), “About the Company”
http://www.tirc.com/invest/TASA/
CTB/McGraw-Hill, Language Proficiency
http://www.ctb.com/products/category_home.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=33485&bmUID=1038347115151
California English Language Development Test
http://www.cde.ca.gov/statetests/celdt/celdt.html
Education Week, October 16, 2002, News in Brief: A State Capitals
Roundup, “Kentucky's New Tests Meet Federal Law”
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=07caps.h22&keywords=california%20AND%20227%20AND%20cost
Implementing ESEA’s Testing Provisions, An Analysis By W. James Popham
University of California, Los Angeles Commenting as Chair of The
Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment, March 2002
http://www.aasa.org/issues_and_insights/issues_dept/Commiss.n_Report_Book.pdf
Other NCLB & English Language Acquisition references:
U.S. Department of Education, State Administered Formula Grant Program
For English Language Acquisition And Language Enhancement, No Child
Left Behind Act Of 2001—Title Iii, Part A, English Language
Acquisition, Language Enhancement, And Academic Achievement Act
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OELA/formulafacts.html
U.S. Department of Education, Native American and Alaska Native
Children in School Program, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001--Title
III: English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic
Achievement program, Part A, Sec. 3112 & 3128
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OELA/nativefacts.html
The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language
Instruction Educational Programs
Title III “Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and
Immigrant Students”
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/miscpubs/legislation/nclb/nclb-iii.pdf) PDF
format
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/pg39.html HTML Format
US Department of Education, NCLB Contents
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/
National Association of State Boards of Education
http://www.nasbe.org/Membership/NCLB/NCLB.html
The READ Institute, The Institute for Research in English Acquisition
and Development
http://www.ceousa.org/READ/
National Association for Bilingual Education
http://www.nabe.org/
Google Search Terms:
"No Child Left Behind"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22No+Child+Left+Behind%22&btnG=Google+Search
"no child left behind" "title III"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=%22no+child+left+behind%22+%22title+III%22
education "title III" grants
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=education+%22title+III%22+grants&btnG=Google+Search
"no child left behind" english second language cost
://www.google.com/search?q=%22no+child+left+behind%22+english+second+language+cost&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&start=10&sa=N
"no child left behind" "title III" funding
://www.google.com/search?q=%22no+child+left+behind%22+%22title+III%22+funding&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off
english "second language" "one year" OR "1 year" state cost OR funding
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=english+%22second+language%22+%22one+year%22+OR+%221+year%22+state+cost+OR+funding&btnG=Google+Search
"No Child Left Behind" english language
://www.google.com/search?q=%22No+Child+Left+Behind%22+english+language&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off
"No Child Left Behind" english language teaching
://www.google.com/search?q=%22No+Child+Left+Behind%22+english+language+teaching&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&start=20&sa=N
"No Child Left Behind" impact english language teaching
://www.google.com/search?q=%22No+Child+Left+Behind%22+impact+english+language+teaching&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off |
