Educating limited English students - problems abound

By John Schilling

This month, we published an annual report to the Legislature on Limited English Proficient programs for school year 1998-1999. As always, the report will generate an intense amount of scrutiny, debate and suggestions for what to do next.

The most important fact to keep in mind is one that people on all sides of this issue can agree on: We are not doing an adequate job of educating LEP students in Arizona and this must change.

As in previous years, all information in the report is self-reported by school districts and charter schools. Although our English Acquisition Unit cannot validate all information, it does carry out numerous spot checks to review submissions that are obviously out of proportion.

As a result, the information in the report must be analyzed with its limitations in mind. What will make this report, and analysis of LEP programs in general, infinitely more reliable is the submission of student level data into the Student Accountability Information System. A bill currently is moving through the Legislature to accomplish this goal.

This year's report paints a similarly dismal picture as last year's. Schools report 132,806 LEP students in programs; a total of $211.07 million in state, federal and local monies spent on LEP programs and an overall exit rate of 5.5 percent. What the report clearly illustrates is that we are not doing the job.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan said she believes the primary goal of LEP programs should be to move students to English proficiency as quickly as possible. What we know to be true is a 20-point gap between native speakers of English and LEP students on achievement tests. This is inexcusable.

The recent federal court ruling in the Flores case, which found that Arizona has, in fact, underfunded English acquisition programs, points to the need for increased funding for LEP students.

Keegan does support additional funding for LEP students and has also called for substantial increases in K-12 funding targeted to more instructional days, AIMS intervention assistance, professional development and technology infrastructure assistance.

We also need to analyze thoroughly the current maintenance and operations formulas, including the LEP weight; legislation is now moving to create a task force to do this. It has been 20 years since the formulas underwent substantial revisions, and now is the right time for another analysis.

On the other side are those who believe we should do away with bilingual education and move to a system of structured immersion. While testing in California has shown dramatic improvement for LEP students in structured immersion programs, outside variables and only one year of data do not make the results conclusive.

Keegan has said she shares the concerns of those behind the Arizona initiative, but does not believe this issue is best resolved through the initiative process.

Last year the Legislature passed HB 2387, which strengthened the role of parents in selecting programs for their children and gave the state Department of Education new responsibilities for LEP programs, including developing the criteria by which students will be declared ``English proficient.''

What we have found is that developing passing scores, other than those formally established by test designers, would likely invalidate existing tests.

We have notified school districts and charter schools that our intent over the next five months is to discuss the issue with testing directors, the companies who designed the tests, assessment experts, and program administrators - both in Arizona and elsewhere.

We take very seriously the need to comply with HB 2387; for this reason, we have brought in additional staff to complete the review and develop final guidance to schools.

If we are serious about closing the achievement gap, it is imperative students be proficient in English. Anything less would be a disservice to them and a loss for the state.

John Schilling is chief of policy and planning in the Arizona Department of Education.