State in dark on spending for schools to teach English Pat Kossan
Nine days before the election, no one can tell voters if Proposition 203, designed to shut down bilingual education, will save money - or cost even more. In part, that's because the Department of Education, despite years of trying, has no idea how much money is being spent on programs now. "That's it in a nutshell," said Jennifer Mabry, the department's chief of policy and operations. "We're working in the dark." Adding to that unknown are two federal court orders demanding the state spend more on the lagging programs. Then there's the untested theory that immigrant children can learn enough English in one year of "immersion" to thrive in a regular classroom. Arizona English learners now average five years in language programs before they move on. And Proposition 203 would require students to be able to learn in English before they transferred. So to save money, state officials would have to find an immersion program that could consolidate five years of learning into one, state schools Superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan said. But administrators, teachers, even legislative analysts doubt that would happen - and say it could cost districts even more to revamp lessons and train staff. If all of the state's English learners, about 135,000, were to test into a regular classroom in one year, the savings would be $20 million in 2004, "although that outcome is unlikely," a legislative summary reports. Analysts also say federal laws may slow down any rush to put kids into regular classrooms before they're ready. The latest figures on what districts spend on English learners are in the state Superintendent of Public Instruction's 1998-99 report to the legislators. But trying to sort fact from fiction leads to two conclusions: The funding report is riddled with obvious errors, and state education officials and local district officials are eager to blame each other. "It's a usual state report, it's worthless," said Karen Eyherabide, finance chief for Dysart Unified School District. "They take our numbers and skew them for their own purposes." But ask Department of Education officials why many of the report's numbers are wrong and they'll point to district officials, who are responsible for sending the state those numbers on the department's electronic form. "They're gaming the system to maximize their gains and minimize what they have to report," said John Schilling, the department's chief of policy and planning. "We can't even give you an exact figure of how many (districts) have programs." In its latest report, the department claims school districts spend $211 million, or an average of $1,500 on each English learner. But even Schilling said the numbers are wrong and doubts that much money goes into English acquisition programs. The report says the state directly provided about $250 for each English learner, even though the state funding formula calls for about $150. Mabry isn't sure why there is a discrepancy. The rest of the $1,500 per student comes from "other district funds" and federal grants. But a quick review of the report suggests something amiss: • Mesa Unified is among a third of the districts showing no state funding at all for English learners in 1998-99, even though the year before, Mesa is down for nearly $500,000. Both entries are wrong, said Chuck Essigs, Mesa's assistant superintendent. "I don't know where those numbers come from," he said, adding that all districts receive state money for their English learners. "There are certainly things you can look at here and say, 'That's not even close,' " he said of the report. • Glendale Elementary shows no district money going to English learners in 1998-99, a drop of $7 million from the year before. District officials say both entries are wrong. • Dysart Unified appears to spend $2,870 on each of its English learners. Dysart officials said the number is about $2,000 per student. Mabry said districts know the numbers but can't seem to report them correctly. Any hope of improving the quality of the report, Mabry said, rests with the passage of Proposition 301, a ballot measure that would provide new tax money for public education, including a computer program to track public money. "We have no idea how money moves through the system," Schilling said. |