Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
W H I T E PA P E R
March 2019
Educational Fairness
and Latino Student
Success in Arizona
Introduction
Latino* students are the fastest-growing segment of the
U.S. public school population and make up one in four
public school students.1 U.S. public schools also serve
nearly five million English Learners (ELs) nationwide.2
The Latino student population will only continue to grow. The U.S. Department of
Education predicts that by 2027 Latino students will comprise nearly 30% of the student
population.3 Unfortunately, significant achievement gaps persist between Latino students
and their peers, and that gap is even more pronounced for ELs.
On the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)† in 2017, only
23% of Latino fourth graders scored proficient or above in reading, as compared to 47% of
their White peers.4 In eighth grade reading, that number was only 5% for ELs, compared to
38% for non-EL students.5 The same gaps exist in mathematics where only 20% of Latino
eighth graders scored proficient or above, as compared to 44% of their White peers. For
ELs, that number drops down to only 6%.6 While there are bright spots—the Latino high
school graduation7 and college-going rates8 have both hit historic highs—there is still much
work to be done. As the Latino student population continues to grow, it is imperative that
we are committed as a nation to raising the academic achievement for Latino and EL
students. It is not only the right thing to do, the U.S. economy depends on it.
* The terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” are used interchangeably by the U.S. Census Bureau and throughout this document to
refer to persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, Dominican, Spanish, and other Hispanic descent; they
may be of any race.
† National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment by
various subject areas. The Congressionally mandated project is administered by the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). NAEP is given to a representative
sample of students across the country. Results are reported for groups of students with similar characteristics (e.g., gender, race
and ethnicity, school location), https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/ (accessed November 2018).
Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
In an attempt to revamp accountability in accountable for the performance of all
public education and to continue towards students, including Latino and EL students.
the goal of closing achievement gaps,
Congress passed the bipartisan Every Student On September 6, 2017, Arizona’s ESSA plan
Succeeds Act (ESSA) that was signed into was approved by the U.S. Department of
law in December of 2015. ESSA is the national Education.9 With the potential to impact
education law passed to replace No Child Left nearly 700,000 Latino students and 100,000
Behind (NCLB). ESSA maintained many of the ELs10 enrolled in Arizona’s public schools,
key civil rights protections, such as standards- Arizona must have an accountability
based accountability and the reporting of data system that prioritizes and includes the
by student subgroups, while simultaneously performance of all students. This report
providing states and districts with a great provides an overview of key provisions in
deal of flexibility and responsibility. ESSA’s ESSA, discusses how Arizona’s ESSA plan
goal is to ensure equal opportunity for all addresses accountability for Latino students
students and fully prepare them for success in and ELs, and provides recommendations to
college and career. However, states now hold Arizona’s accountability system to better
the responsibility to design an accountability ensure that Latino and EL students in Arizona
system that meaningfully holds schools are receiving a high-quality education that
prepares them for both college and career.
A Look at the Achievement Gap in Arizona
• In 2017, Latino students had an average score that was 27 points lower than that for
White students on the NAEP eighth grade math assessment.11
• On NAEP’s fourth grade reading assessment, only 18% of Latino students scored proficient
as compared to 46% of their White peers.12
• On Arizona’s own AzMERIT state assessment,* these gaps remain. For the 2017-2018
school year, only 27% of Latino students passed the eighth grade English Language
Arts (ELA) assessment, as compared to 53% of their White peers. That number drops to
only 4% for ELs.13
For more data on student achievement in Arizona, please see Appendix A.
* AzMERIT is Arizona’s statewide achievement assessment for ELA and Mathematics. The test is administered each spring to Arizona
students in grades three through high school. In high school students take AzMERIT End-of-Course (EOC) tests in ELA and
Mathematics that test their proficiency in these subjects.
2 | UNIDOS USEducational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
Overview of Key disaggregating student data by federally
designated subgroups across each indicator.
Provisions in ESSA for • Include an English Language Proficiency
Latino and EL students: indicator in a substantial way. States must
include an indicator for English Language
ESSA is the current federal education civil Proficiency that is adequately weighted to
rights law that ties federal funding to a meaningfully include ELs.
variety of accountability and reporting • Utilize transparent data. Each state
measures at the state level. ESSA’s passage education agency (SEA) and local education
signifies an overdue benchmark for agency (LEA) that receives Title I, Part A
reauthorizing No Child Left Behind (NCLB). funds must prepare and disseminate an
It was also an opportunity to update the annual report card that includes information
law and provide states with more flexibility about a wide variety of student and school
to create policies that are beneficial for performance metrics, and they must also
their students and local context while still consult parents and families in developing
maintaining significant guardrails for civil annual report cards.15 States should report,
rights and accountability. There remains the and make available, high-quality data on the
recognition under the law that historically, performance of all subgroups of students
states and districts have underinvested in that is understandable to all stakeholders,
schools serving a high number of Latino, EL, including limited English proficient parents
and other historically marginalized groups of and students.
students. For that reason, critical protections
• Engage parents and families in a
are needed across all states.
meaningful way. Under ESSA, states must
Most notably, ESSA requires states to engage parents and families on critical
establish a system of annual meaningful components of the accountability system
differentiation (AMD), a system that offers such as the development of districts’ school
clarity and transparency on how schools are improvement plans under the state’s ESSA
performing, that is based on the performance plan, and schools’ annual report card.
of all students and each subgroup of • Define a tiered system of supports and
students.14 We recommend a state’s AMD interventions. States must set three distinct
system provide a school with a summative systems of school identification and support:
rating that meaningfully includes subgroups Comprehensive Support and Improvement
and is connected to identification for (CSI),16 Targeted School Improvement
additional resources and supports. Moreover, (TSI),17 and Additional Targeted Support and
each state’s accountability system must: Improvement (ATSI).18
• Count all subgroups of students. States Currently, Arizona’s ESSA plan fails to
must develop an accountability system incorporate many of these provisions
that holds all schools accountable for which are the most salient to ensuring a
the performance of all students and quality education for Arizona’s Latino and
each subgroup of students. This includes EL students.
UNIDOS US | 3Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona Funding for K-12 Schools in Arizona Schools across Arizona need adequate funding to better serve their students. Arizona is among several states where the public investment in K-12 schools has fallen dramatically over the last decade to funding levels lower than pre-recession levels. Despite a slight increase in funding between fiscal years 2016 and 2017, the percentage of resources spent on instruction remains lower than in most prior years.19 In FY 2017, the average per pupil spending in AZ was $9,653, as compared to the national average (2015) of $12,975. While funding has decreased, costs have increased, leaving the burden on local districts to try and overcome funding inadequacy and inequity of funding from the state-level.20 There have been significant school spending measures in Arizona over the past three years that will impact funding moving forward. One is Proposition 123, a voter-approved measure in 2016 that increased per pupil spending through a combination of State General Fund dollars and an increase in distributions from the Permanent State School Fund (State Land Trust).21 The other is the legislative extension of Proposition 301. In 2000, voters approved Proposition 301 to increase the state sales tax by 0.6% and create a dedicated source of revenues to public education. In March 2018, legislators voted to extend the sales tax for another 20 years before it was set to expire.22 Nonetheless, the state still faces challenges restoring recession-era cuts to education and creating adequate, sustainable funding streams for education to close funding gaps and move Arizona closer to the national average for per pupil spending and teacher salaries. While funding is not the focus of this report, to justly implement the recommendations found in this report, Arizona must rethink its current funding formula to provide increased funding to support interventions and practices that can improve failing schools. Without adequate funding, both traditional district schools and charter schools alike are unable to retain high-quality teachers, invest in research-based practices, and equitably target funds to vulnerable student populations such as ELs and special education students. 4 | UNIDOS US
Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
Arizona’s Accountability system is strongly based on the A-F grading
system already defined in statute.
System and ESSA Plan Arizona’s A-F Grading System
Prior to the passage of ESSA, Arizona The State’s A-F grading system is intended
Revised Statutes §15-241 required the Arizona to differentiate schools by assigning
Department of Education (ADE) to “compile them a standard letter grade that factors
for each public school and local education in components defined by the state
agency, and recommend to the state board legislature. Depending on the type of school
of education, an annual achievement profile (K-8 or 9-12) the school’s grade includes
that consists of an educational dashboard achievement and growth in math, reading,
that reflects the achievement for each public science, and English language proficiency
school and local education agency.” These (ELP), as well as possible acceleration
academic profiles, or list of indicators, as components, high school graduation rates,
required and defined by the Arizona legislature, and other components for bonus points. The
largely serve as the basis for the accountability components vary by both weight and points
system presented in the State’s ESSA plan. and add up to a total possible 100 points. A
While the State did make some adjustments grade is then determined by the percentage
in compliance with ESSA (primarily around of total points. There is one set of indicators
applying the same accountability system to for K-8 schools and a different set for schools
both traditional and alternative schools), their serving grades 9-12.
A-F Grading Components: K-8 Schools (2017-2018)23
Points/
Indicator Component Weight
Percentage
Academic AzMERIT ELA and Math: Students’ performance
Proficiency on AzMERIT ELA and Math, with highly proficient 30% 30%
students receiving the most points.
Academic Growth Student Growth Percentiles: AzMERIT ELA and
Math. Students’ performance in the prior year
25%
and their growth in the current year compared
to their peers.
50%
Student Growth to Target: AzMERIT ELA and
Math. Students’ ability to reach their annual
25%
target, with lower performing students reaching
their target receiving the most points.
English Language Proficiency on AZELLA (EL Assessment):
Proficiency for ELs School’s percentage of students proficient 5%
compared to the K-8 average EL proficiency.
10%
Growth to AZELLA: School’s change in
performance levels compared to the K-8 average 5%
change in performance levels the current year.
Schools that do not meet the minimum student count 10 will be graded on a different scale.
UNIDOS US | 5Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
A-F Grading Components: K-8 Schools (2017-2017)
Points/
Indicator Component Weight
Percentage
Acceleration/
Readiness • Grades 5-8/High School AzMERIT Math:
Increases in students scoring proficient or
higher or the school achieves a proficiency rate
of 25% or higher.
• Grade 3 ELA: Decreasing the school’s
current year minimally proficient percentage
compared to prior year or maintaining a low
minimally proficient percentage.
• Chronic Absenteeism: Decreasing the school’s
current year chronic absenteeism percentage
compared to prior year or maintaining a low 10% 10%
chronic absenteeism rate.
• Inclusion of Special Education Students in
General Education: Mainstreaming a minimum
percentage of special education students into a
general education classroom.
• Improved Growth of Subgroups: Improvement
in the school’s subgroup scores from the prior
year’s statewide average for the subgroup or
the subgroup scores are equal to or better than
the state’s target for the subgroup.
Science For proficiency on AIMS Science, schools may
earn 1.5 points for scoring above the statewide Up to 3%
average or 3.0 for scoring well above the Bonus
statewide average.
Special Education Schools with greater than or equal to 80% of
Inclusion current year statewide average of full academic Up to 2%
year students enrolled in special education earn Bonus
two bonus points.
Schools that do not meet the minimum student count 10 will be graded on a different scale.
6 | UNIDOS USEducational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
A-F Grading Components: 9-12 Schools (2017-2018)24
Points/
Indicator Component Weight
Percentage
Academic AzMERIT ELA and Math: Students’ performance
Proficiency on AzMERIT ELA and math, with highly proficient 30% 30%
students receiving the most points.
Academic Student Growth Percentiles: AzMERIT ELA and Math.
Growth Students’ performance in the prior year and their 10%
growth in the current year compared to their peers.
Student Growth to Target: AzMERIT ELA and Math. 20%
Students’ ability to reach their annual target, with
10%
lower performing students reaching their target
receiving the most points.
English Proficiency on AZELLA (ELA Assessment):
Language School’s percentage of students proficient 5%
Proficiency compared to the K-8 average EL proficiency.
10%
for ELs Growth to AZELLA: School’s change in performance
levels compared to the K-8 average change in 5%
performance levels the current year.
High School Cohort 2016 4-year graduation rate x .05 5%
Graduation Cohort 2015 5-year graduation rate x .04 4%
Rate
Cohort 2014 6-year graduation rate x .025 2.5%
20%
Cohort 2013 7-year graduation rate x .005 0.5%
High school graduation rate or school’s improvement
10%
over prior year’s graduation rate.
College- and • College- and Career-Readiness (CCR) points are
Career- determined by averaging the CCR A-F points
Readiness from current year’s seniors.
• Students accumulate points by achieving the
items listed below.
• A student who accumulates one point of Red 20% 20%
Indicators and one point of Blue Indicators
generates two bonus CCR A-F points.*
• A school that increases the percent or has 85%
of post-secondary enrollment and/or military
service of prior year’s graduates generates one
bonus point.
Science For proficiency on AIMS Science, schools may earn
Up to 3%
1.5 points for scoring above the statewide average
Bonus
or 3.0 for scoring well above the statewide average.
Schools that do not meet the minimum student count 10 will be graded on a different scale.
* This is a more comprehensive table that explains more of the red and blue components: https://azsbe.az.gov/sites/default/files/
media/2017-2018%20A-F%20Plan%20for%209-12_3.pdf (accessed November 2018).
UNIDOS US | 7Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
Based on the cumulative These cut scores are determined by statistical norm, and the
score determined by grades are then meant to range from an “A–F” defined by
these indicators, the state the state as follows. A school does not need to meet all the
assigns the school a letter descriptors designated to each letter grade to qualify for
grade. In September of that grade:26
2018, the Arizona State
Board of Education Letter Level of Descriptor
decided on the following Grade Performance
cut scores to define the • Distinguished performance on
A-F grades:25 the statewide assessment
• Significant student growth
K-8 Cut Scores for
2017–2018 • High four-year graduation rates
Grade Score A Excellent • Students are on track
to proficiency
A 84.67–100
• Overall performance is
significantly higher than
B 72.39–84.66
state average
• High performance on statewide
C 60.11–72.38
assessment; and/or significant
student growth; and/or higher
D 47.82–60.10 Highly
B four-year graduation rates;
Performing
and/or moving students to
F Less than 47.82 proficiency at a higher rate
than state average
• Adequate performance
9-12 Cut Scores for
but needs improvement on
2017–2018
C Performing some indicators including
Grade Score proficiency, growth, or
graduation rate
A 83.83–100
• Inadequate performance in
Minimally proficiency, growth, and/
B 70.02–83.82 D
Performing or four-year graduation rate
relative to the state average
C 56.21–70.01
• Systematic failures in
proficiency, growth, and
D 42.40–56.20 graduation rates (below 67%)
F Failing
• Performance is in bottom
F Less than 42.40
5% of the state
8 | UNIDOS USEducational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
While Arizona’s A-F grading system within Stability Counts
the ESSA plan did gain approval from the U.S. In addition to the basic compliance elements
Department of Education, it still falls short in missing from Arizona’s ESSA plan and A-F
several ways. grading system, there are other elements of
• It does not include subgroups of students the plan that raise equity concerns. For the
for each indicator in the determination of a proficiency component of the A-F grading
school’s grade. system, Arizona utilizes a weighting model
that the state refers to as “Stability Counts.”
• It does not provide A-F grades that are Specifically, Arizona’s ESSA plan states, “the
clearly defined, reflect how a school is longer you have taught a student the more
serving all students, is available in a parent’s the weight the student gets.”27 This model is
preferred language and is made available in built on the inclusion of Full Academic Year
a format that is accessible to all families. (FAY) students and provides proficiency
• It does not identify additional, targeted weights based on the number of years of
supports for Latino and EL students when a enrollment. A FAY student is defined as
school fails to serve these groups well. a student who is “enrolled within the first
10 days of the school’s calendar year and
Nonetheless, under ESSA, Arizona can amend continuously enrolled until the first day
its approved plan and continue to make of the spring testing window or test date
improvements that better serve the needs for AzMERIT and MSAA.”28 Based on that
of all the state’s students, including its large definition, the following weights apply:
Latino and EL student populations.
Max Proficiency Weights
Three Years Two Years One Year
Years of Enrollment of FAY of FAY of FAY
Three Years 15 10 5
Two Years (Example: only serves grade 7-8) 18 12
One Year (Example: New School) 30
This system is intentionally set up to count included in Arizona’s accountability system.
some students more than others and has the For example, there is currently an undercount
potential to discount student populations that of students in the state accountability system
are often transient and the most vulnerable, due to the stability counts policy. The Arizona
such as low-income students, migrant Department of Education (ADE) website lists
students, homeless students and foster youth. 494,577 Latino students and 83,500 ELs, while
This could have a disproportionate impact its ESSA plan lists 692,634 Latino students
on how Latino students and other students and 95,788 ELs. According to an ADE official,
of color are accounted for within the A-F the state accountability system often only
grade that is assigned to schools, only further contains FAY students, while federal requires
exacerbating the issue that the performance all students in the calculation.29
of subgroups of students are not meaningfully
UNIDOS US | 9Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
Tiered System of Supports receive the supports they need when a school
While Arizona makes the A-F grading is failing to serve them well.
system the central focus of their ESSA plan, Arizona’s ESSA Plan Falls Short on Equity
the state has separate and specific criteria
to determine which schools are placed in While Arizona’s ESSA plan was one of
Comprehensive Support and Improvement the first to get approved, it still falls short
(CSI), Targeted Support and Improvement on creating an accountability system
(TSI), and Additional Targeted Support and that meaningfully includes all students.
Improvement (ATSI) in compliance with ESSA. Latino students, ELs, and other historically
Arizona identifies schools for: marginalized groups of students will not
have their performance reflected in the
• Comprehensive Support school’s overall grade in a significant way.
and Improvement: Under the current A-F system, subgroup
A school where graduation rate is accountability can technically be part of the
below 67%. grade for a K-8 school but would not count
When a school is in the lowest 5% of all for more than about 6% of the overall grade.
Title I schools based on the summative For high schools, it’s not included at all. And
A-F total points. while the state is willing to report subgroup
performance, that same performance is still
A school that has been identified for TSI not part of the state’s A-F grading system
does not exit after four years. and reporting alone is not enough.
• Targeted Support and Improvement:
Schools that have one or more significant An accountability system cannot properly
gaps between subgroups and any low function and live up to the purpose and spirit
achieving subgroups for three of historic civil rights law simply through the
consecutive years. reporting of data. For schools, and students,
to benefit from the accountability system,
• Additional Targeted Support and that system must accurately reflect, and help
Improvement: A school where any subgroup identify which subgroups of students are
of students, who meet the n-size, on its own struggling within a school and then use that
would lead to identification as a CSI school identification to drive action and resources
based on the A-F accountability system. to better support a school. Arizona’s system
does not accomplish that goal.
Arizona has taken the right steps in
having distinct criteria for each of the The state of Arizona and its A-F system
three types of support. However, the bar runs the risk of presenting a misleading
for identification is very low, creating the summative rating that communicates a signal
possibility of missing struggling schools of quality to families but leaves ELs and
that could use the investments for support Latino students behind. Additionally, it uses
and improvement. In other words, a school a vague system to identify when subgroups
must be the lowest of the very lowest to of students are struggling, and when a
get any type of identification and support. school may need targeted support to serve
Additionally, when it comes to targeted all students well. What results is a system
support and improvement, the definition for that only superficially provides information
a “significant gap” is vague and undefined to students and families, rather than creating
by the state. Arizona ought to more clearly an accountability system grounded on the
define and classify schools that have one or performance and promise of all students and
more subgroups with notable achievement meaningfully connected to a strategy that
gaps. Overall, this could lead to variations drives resources to schools that improve
and under-identification of schools, as well outcomes for kids.
as under-identification of which subgroups
10 | UNIDOS USEducational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
Data Transparency and the information is housed and displayed in
varying places and in different formats, none
School Report Cards that are user friendly, rather than having
a central location for the information that
Having a strong accountability system is only parents and families may want and need.
one key component of an equitable education
system. Another is the use of high-quality, Arizona also uses data to communicate
transparent data that can communicate school finance information to the public.
essential information to students, parents, The Arizona Auditor General is responsible
communities, and other stakeholders. This for producing a report “to determine the
requires schools and districts to be transparent percentage of every dollar Arizona school
and timely about school performance, school districts spend in the classroom” as required
funding, and about decisions being made that by Arizona Revised Statutes §41-1279.03.
can impact the experience and education of This report32 is available online and includes
all students—including providing information background information and analysis on
in parents’ preferred language. In a recent school funding. It also includes snapshots for
poll, 93% of parents say they need data to each district in Arizona that report:
help their children do their best and 85% of
• Spending by operational area
teachers say data gives an objective place to
start conversations with parents.30 The Data • Students who passed state assessments
Quality Campaign suggests being transparent • Efficiency measures relative to
and earning trust is one of the key components peer averages
of making data work for students.31 Arizona
• Student and teacher measures
currently uses data in a number of ways.
• Per pupil spending
Arizona’s Current Use of Data
• Per pupil revenue
As described above, using data to calculate
• Operational trends and financial
a school’s grade is one of the most public
tress assessment
facing ways that Arizona utilizes data to
communicate with students and families While these reports could provide the public
about the quality of schools. More specifically, with essential information about how funds are
the state uses “D” and “F” grades to signal distributed throughout schools, the reports are
to the public, and to the state, that a school often difficult to find, dense in content, and not
needs supports and resources to improve student- and parent-friendly. As an example,
the performance of students. In addition to the most recent report released in March of
the summative rating, Arizona will report 2018 is housed on the AZ auditor’s website, not
additional data, like subgroup performance, the department of education, is provided in
that is not part of the school grade English only and is 477 pages.
calculation. This information is available to the
public through several webpages hosted by Barriers to Transparency
the Arizona Department of Education and AZ For data to be an effective tool of equity, it
State Board of Education. is imperative that it measures what matters,
Currently, the information is displayed is made readily available to a wide variety
through a series of excel spreadsheets that of audiences and is connected to action
can be downloaded from the web or through that can improve schools for Latino and EL
azreportcards.org where a family can choose students, and other historically marginalized
their specific school or district to generate groups of students. Currently, Arizona’s data
performance data for the school. The most reporting presents several challenges for
striking aspect of the Arizona system is how students and families.
UNIDOS US | 11Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
• Resources and reports are only provided in ELs in attaining English language proficiency,
English. Whether it is school performance, improving performance in core content areas
school funding, or other accountability and in fostering bilingualism and biculturalism.
measures, all reports are only made available ESSA, on a national level, made notable
in English. Additionally, the online resources, changes for ELs including requiring states to:
guidebooks, and other written explanations • Include an English Language Proficiency
of critical calculations are also only provided (ELP) indicator in its accountability system.
in English. This means that these reports,
and the data contained within them, are not • Implement statewide standardized
usable for the more than two million limited procedures for entering and exiting
English proficient Arizona residents.33 EL services.
• Majority of data resources are only • Setting ambitious long-term goals for
made available online. District budget ELs in ELA and math and English
summaries, student performance and Language Proficiency.
enrollment data and school report cards are • Identify Languages other than English that
all made available online. Nationwide, 23% are present to a significant extent and make
of Hispanics are smartphone dependent, every effort to develop native language
meaning they do not have broadband assessments where they do not exist in
internet access at home. And nearly 80% of those languages.
Latino adults say they primarily access the
internet via mobile device.34 For households Each of these requirements push states to
that do not have access to the internet, a more intentional shift on meeting all the
Arizona’s data is completely inaccessible. academic and linguistic needs of ELs. Arizona
For the families who access the internet via has a long history of navigating laws intended
their mobile device, these reports are not to meet the needs of ELs.
made available in a mobile format rendering
Arizona Laws Impacting EL Policy and Practice
this data unusable by families.
In addition to ESSA and other federal laws
• Reports often don’t measure what matters.
impacting ELs, in 2000, Arizona passed
Measuring what matters is critical to making
Proposition 203, the English-only ballot
data work for students. However, there are
initiative which made Arizona an “English-
many examples of where the data presented
only” state and was widely interpreted as
is not the data needed. A prime example
a mandate for the Structured/Sheltered
is the lack of subgroup performance
English Immersion (SEI) as the model of
reflected in the school’s overall grade.
instruction for ELs.35 SEI requires a focus
Basing a school’s grade on the performance
on attaining English language proficiency—
of the “all student” group can mask the
segregating ELs from native English speakers
performance of other underserved groups
for four hour blocks each day, and requiring
of students and serve as a barrier to much
all instruction and instructional materials to
needed resources and supports.
be provided to students in English only.36
The model is designed for students to obtain
ELs in the English proficiency in one year, but students
State of Arizona remain in the SEI program until they have
demonstrated proficiency in English on the
As ELs continue to be one of the fastest state’s AZELLA exam.* National studies show
growing segments of our school-aged that on average, it takes four years for an EL
population, it is necessary that our public student to obtain English proficiency, and
schools, in Arizona and across the country, longer depending on age when entering the
invest in systems and schools that support system and disability status.37
12 | UNIDOS USEducational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
Additionally, as it currently stands, Arizona of any subgroup of students including ELs.
state statute designates that assessments This data is reported via excel spreadsheets
be given in English38 and that all instruction on the AZ Department of Education data
be in English.39 The Arizona Department website and on azreportcards.org, but
of Education uses this language as part of schools will not be assigned a grade that
the justification for why it does not provide meaningfully counts the performance of ELs
native language assessments for students. on content assessments.
However, the State does provide several
instructional and assessment materials in Research-Based Best Practices for
other languages, including instruction in Supporting ELs
dual language programs throughout the While much of the research around best
state, and the state seal of biliteracy to practices for ELs focuses on the classroom,
students, which requires students to be there are recommendations from the field for
assessed in a foreign language.40 how a state can best support ELs. The state
can set up systems around assessment and
Assessing Content Knowledge for ELs accountability, funding, and teacher retention
Since the state does not offer native to create the conditions in a state that help
language assessments, ELs are assessed ELs thrive.43
for content knowledge in math and ELA
on AzMERIT, which is available in English • Building systemic supports, including
only. Native language assessments are not standards, assessments, accountability
always appropriate for all ELs. For example, systems, and curriculum that integrates
native language assessments may not be academic content and English language
appropriate for ELs who have never received development in the classroom. Language
content instruction in their native language. and academic content learning are most
Nonetheless, they can be a valid and reliable effective when done in tandem. ESSA gives
measure for students who are receiving states and districts greater flexibility in
content instruction in another language or how to measure the progress and between
for newly arrived immigrant students who English Language Proficiency (ELP) and
may have received a formal education in academic achievement.44 Arizona’s current
their home language prior to arriving in focus on students attaining ELP as quickly as
the United States.41 The state does provide possible and in segregated settings through
some accommodations for ELs by offering the SEI model, and its refusal to adopt native
1) read aloud test content; 2) rest/breaks; language assessments all serve as barriers
3) simplified directions; 4) orally translated to be better integrating the language and
directions; and/or 5) a translation dictionary. content achievement in the classroom.
Additional accommodations may be offered • Targeting additional funding to ELs.
for students with disabilities who are ELs.42 Research supports that schools and districts
do need additional targeted funding to
ESSA requires that the performance of support the needs of ELs.45 The federal
subgroups of students, including ELs, on the government provides grant funding to
AzMERIT be included in the accountability states through Part A of Title III to help
system. However, as stated above, Arizona’s ELs with language acquisition and meeting
A-F system does not include the performance content standards, but these funds alone
* The Arizona English Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA) is a standards-based assessment that meets both state and federal
requirements to measure students’ English language proficiency. AZELLA is used for both placement and reassessment purposes,
http://www.azed.gov/assessment/azella/ (accessed November 2018).
UNIDOS US | 13Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
are insufficient for necessary EL services.46 marginalized groups of students. This is
To address such shortages, states must evidenced by persistent achievement and
allocate additional state funding dedicated equity gaps when it comes to academic
to supporting ELs. Arizona uses a weight performance and access to high-quality
of 11.5% for ELs for its funding formula to educational opportunities. The purpose of
districts.47 Even with weighted funding, ESSA is to ensure equal opportunity for all
Arizona’s low-funding levels prohibit the students and fully prepare them for success
state from making a substantial investment in college and career. For this reason, the
in ELs to close persistent achievement gaps. law maintains many key civil rights
• Facilitating parent and family engagement protections, such as standards-based
is important for all students to do well in accountability and the reporting of data by
school.48 It is especially important when student subgroups, while simultaneously
language and cultural barriers exist, which providing states and districts with a great
can make it challenging for families to deal of flexibility and responsibility.
engage with teachers and school leaders.
For immigrant parents, research indicates Using ESSA as a tool, Arizona policymakers
that schools can be overwhelming can improve educational equity and fairness for
environments that discourage parent all students in the state by embracing public
involvement.49 Other research finds that policies meant to protect Latino, ELs, and other
parents “consistently call for opportunities historically marginalized groups of students. In
to provide input and to receive more particular, state policymakers should:
information from the school in a language
and format they can understand.”50 To Strengthen Arizona’s Accountability System.
better support ELs, the state must support • Amend Arizona’s A-F grading system to
and fund the implementation of parent increase the weight of the performance
engagement programs that are culturally of each subgroup of students in the
and linguistically appropriate. Title I, Part A determination of an elementary or middle
of ESSA requires that at least 1% of funds school’s grade. The system should provide
be reserved for parent engagement.* Title a school with a summative rating that
III funds also have some requirements for meaningfully includes subgroups and is
parent and family engagement activities connected to identification for additional
related to ELs.51 Therefore, states have resources and supports. Currently, subgroup
some designated funds for more inclusive, improvement is an optional indicator for up
language-accessible parental engagement to 6% of a school’s rating. Latinos, alone,
practices and programs. Currently, account for 45.3% of all students in the K-12
Arizona’s adversity to providing materials system but their improvement has little
in a language other than English and their weight on the overall rating. Other states
consistently low funding levels serve as a that have meaningfully included subgroups
barrier to this type of investment. of students are the District of Columbia
and Tennessee. In Tennessee, nearly 40%
Recommendations of a school’s grade is based on subgroup
performance. Increasing the weight of
Historically, states and districts have subgroup performance will ensure that a
underinvested in schools serving a school’s grade accurately reflects how a
high number of Latino, ELs, and other school is serving all students.
* ESSA Section 1116 requires that each LEA who receives at least $500,000 in Title I, part A funds shall reserve at least one percent for
parent engagement.
14 | UNIDOS USEducational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
• Include subgroup performance in only receive an “A” grade if all subgroups of
determination of a high school’s grade. students are meeting the defined targets and
Currently, subgroup performance is not goals set by the state. Otherwise, parents will
included at all for grades for high schools not be provided with accurate information
in Arizona. Arizona’s goal is for 90% of about how a school is serving students like
all students, and all student subgroups, their own. Additionally, allowing a school
to graduate on time and be proficient in to receive a top rating while still failing
both ELA and math. To reach this goal, to adequately serve part of the student
schools must be held accountable for the population, sends a signal that all students
performance of subgroups and be identified are not valued equally by the state.
for support when a subgroup of students is
not meeting targets and goals. Improve Data Transparency for
Students and Families.
• Utilize transparent data on the achievement
of ELs. Arizona chose to include former ELs • Provide schools with an A-F grade that
for up to four years in their EL subgroup reflects the performance of all students and
for reporting. While this does comply with each subgroup of student. These ratings
ESSA, including former ELs who have been should communicate in a transparent way
reclassified may mask the performance of about the performance of all groups of
current ELs. Arizona should track and report students down to the school level. While
current ELs, former ELs, and long-term ELs Arizona does report subgroup performance
separately to better ensure that all schools data, the summative rating still does not take
are serving ELs well. subgroup performance into account. Parents
are left with a summative rating that does not
• Define a “significant gap” in their tier align with the data presented in the report
system of support. A key component to card. A school report card is a powerful tool
ESSA is to accurately identify schools for in reporting to parents the expectation of
comprehensive support and improvement; school performance and signaling when
targeted support and improvement; action must be taken by the state to improve
and additional targeted support and conditions at a failing school. Under the
improvement to help drive resources to current Arizona plan the grade will not
schools that are failing one or more group provide this vital information, but rather
of students. Clear and meaningful criteria it runs the risk of confusing parents and
for targeted support are necessary as a first misrepresenting school performance.
step to an effective school improvement
strategy. Arizona does define their tiered • Ensure that all data and data reporting
support system with three distinct sets of tools are readily available for limited English
criteria. However, they failed to define what proficient parents in the language in
constitutes a “significant gap” between which they are most comfortable. Arizona
subgroups that would lead to a school currently provides performance data and
being identified for targeted support and other school level data through the Arizona
improvement. Arizona must create a clear Department of Education’s Accountability
system aligned to its goals and data to and Research webpage, and through the
identify schools when they are not serving Arizona State Board of Education’s A-F
subgroups of students well. School Letter Grades webpage. These
sites are only available in English and to
• Ensure that a school cannot get an A rating if users who have access to the appropriate
any subgroup of students is underperforming. technology and software needed to
As Arizona continues to work to establish navigate the webpages. This is a barrier for
cut scores on the A-F grading system, the low-income and limited English proficient
performance of subgroups of students parents. Arizona should provide school
should carry enough weight that schools can
UNIDOS US | 15Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
report cards and school performance all ELs, they are an accurate and valid
data in multiple languages and in a measure of progress for students receiving
variety of formats so that all families instruction in a language other than English
can make informed choices about their and for students who are new arrivals and
child’s education. have previously received a formal education
• Engage families and collect feedback on in their native language. Arizona should
what information and format is most usable adopt native language assessments to
for students and families. Stakeholder improve the accountability system and to
engagement is an integral part of any state’s signal to ELs and dual language learners
accountability system. On the reporting and that there is value in bilingualism.*
dissemination of vital school performance • Increase and target funding to be invested in
data, students and families are best research-based practices to better support
equipped to make recommendations on the English Learners. Currently, Arizona uses a
format and usability of the state’s reporting weighted funding formula model to provide
tools. The state should solicit community an additional weight for EL students to its
and family feedback on their data per-pupil allocation. However, Arizona’s
reporting tools and implement appropriate overall per pupil funding is insufficient to
recommendations that will improve data serve the needs of all students. Arizona
transparency for stakeholders. should increase overall spending in
education, use the state’s accountability
Adopt Policies to advance the system to identify schools in need of
English Proficiency and Academic additional resources for ELs, and target funds
Performance of ELs. to those districts and schools to be used
• Repeal the state’s English-only law and on research-based practices in attaining
discontinue the use of the state-wide English language proficiency and content
structured/sheltered English immersion mastery. The State should require transparent
model. SEI inappropriately pulls EL reporting on the use of targeted funds,
students away from their content area including federal Title III funds, to ensure that
courses and segregates them from other high-quality investments are being made in
students for nearly half of their school the State’s nearly 100,000 English Learners.
day. There is a large body of research that • Expand high-quality dual language and other
has documented the negative impacts bilingual education programs to develop
of SEI and its focus on achieving English ELs’ content knowledge, English Proficiency
Language Proficiency in just one year (or and home language simultaneously. In a
as quickly as possible) is counter to what growing global economy, bilingualism is
research and best practice suggest. Arizona more valuable than ever. Beyond being an
should repeal the English-only laws in the asset on the job market, bilingual education
state and adopt research- based models of programs promote bilingualism, biliteracy,
instructions that better serve ELs. academic content knowledge and cross-
• Create and adopt native language cultural competency in students. Rather
assessments, when appropriate. Native than solely focusing on a student’s English
language assessments can be a powerful language proficiency, Arizona should invest in
tool in accurately assessing a student’s more dual language and bilingual education
content knowledge. While native language programs that will better prepare their
assessments may not be appropriate for students to be the leaders of tomorrow.
* A previous UnidosUS review of states’ ESSA plans shows that 28 states have developed some assessments in another language other
than English, http://www.achieve.org/files/Achieve_UnidosUS_ESSA%20EL%20Goals_1.pdf (accessed November 2018).
16 | UNIDOS USEducational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
Conclusion • Arizona must create a statewide
accountability system that complies with
Arizona’s success relies on the success of federal law and results in a summative
its Latino and EL students. With Latino rating that includes the performance of
students representing nearly 50% of the all students and the performance of each
student population, they are the future subgroup of students. The state’s A-F
workers, teachers, policymakers, and business grading system should continue to focus on
leaders of Arizona and the nation. It is only closing persistent achievement gaps across
fair to create an accountability system that the state and providing supports to schools
accurately reflects how schools are serving all even when only one subgroup of students
students, provides high-quality transparent is underperforming.
data to families, and spurs action to support • The state and districts should improve
low-performing schools. Arizona’s ESSA data quality and transparency for students,
plan is not only a statement of their values families, and other stakeholders by providing
and their commitment to all students, it is a reports in languages other than English
powerful mechanism to ensure educational and in a variety of formats that are easily
equity. In Arizona, it is clear that there is still accessible for families who may not have
more work to be done. access to the technology and connectivity
currently needed to access Arizona’s school-
As Latino students and ELs continue through
level data. Arizona should engage parents
the public education system and chart
and families to glean input on how to most
their path to college and career, Arizona
effectively communicate the data on school
policymakers must take the lead in advancing
performance to the public.
policies and practices that support the
achievement of all students. • Fully support ELs in the state of
Arizona by repealing the English-only
law, developing native language
assessments for students when
appropriate, investing in research-based
practices that support ELs, and expanding
dual language and bilingual education
opportunities throughout the state.
UNIDOS US | 17Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
Appendix A: Enrollment and
Achievement For SY 2017-2018*
Total Enrollment K-12: 1,092,882
Latino Students: 494,577
English Learners: 83,500
AzMERIT: English Language Arts (SY 2017-2018)
3rd Grade
Latino White Black Asian English Learners
% of students passing 33% 59% 31% 67% 5%
8th Grade
Latino White Black Asian ELs
% of students passing 28% 54% 27% 65% 2%
11th Grade
Latino White Black Asian ELs
% of students passing 18% 40% 18% 57%Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
Appendix A: Enrollment and
Achievement For SY 2017-2018*
Total Enrollment K-12: 1,092,882
Latino Students: 494,577
English Learners: 83,500
High School Graduation Rate for SY 2016-2017†
Latino White Black Asian ELs
74.56% 82.87% 73.85% 90.67% 39.43%
2017 NAEP Results: Grade Four Reading52 and Math53
Math: Percentage at or above Reading: Percentage at or
proficient above proficient
Latino 23% 18%
White 50% 46%
Black 13% 20%
Asian 71% 60%
2017 NAEP Results: Grade Eight Reading54 and Math55
Math: Percentage at or above Reading: Percentage at or
Proficient above Proficient
Latino 20% 20%
White 48% 43%
Black 21% 19%
Asian 71% 52%
* Calculations based of data provided by Arizona Department of Education, https://www.azed.gov/accountability-research/data/
(accessed November 2018).
† All data points above from https://www.azed.gov/accountability-research/data/.
UNIDOS US | 19Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
Appendix B: Arizona Funding
In FY17 Arizona had total estimated revenue of $10,307,279,066 to support district and charter
schools. The state receives about 49% of funding from state sources, 38% from local sources,
and about 13% from federal sources.56
Federal Funding:
• For FY17, the Federal Government supplied the following funding streams that assist with EL,
immigrant, and migrant students to Arizona’s SEA57:
State Agency Program—Migrant Education: $7,260, 834
Language Acquisition Grants: $14,268,915
• FY16 was the last year that school improvement grants were distributed to states.
State and Local Funding:
• For FY18, funding for the Arizona Department of Education accounted for 43% of the total
General Fund spending in the state, making it the largest share.58
• Every year, Arizona’s Auditor General produces a report on how districts use taxpayer
money for education. The most recent auditor report shows that an average of 53.8% of
every dollar spent on education went towards classroom spending in 2017, a year-over-year
increase of 0.3 percentage points.59
• Arizona uses a different funding formula for district schools and charter schools. As a result,
the per pupil spending for traditional district schools is $9,474 and for charters it is $8,523.
This includes a base support level of $5,054 per pupil in districts and $5,017 per pupil in
charters. A full breakdown of the funding is as follows:60
All Reported Funding
School Districts Charter Schools
Item Total Per Pupil Total Per Pupil
Average Daily Membership (ADM) Pupils 926,354 179,669
Maintenance and Operations (M&O) $5,634,755,929 $6,083
Unrestricted Capital Outlay 244,813,160 264
Classroom Site and Instruction
407,234,586 440
Improvement Funds
School Facilities 51,602,281 56
Adjacent Ways 24,819,290 27
Debt Service 718,109,082 775
Other 1,694,693,228 1,829
Charter School–General Projects $1,368,387,919 $7,616
Charter School–Federal Projects 78,047,374 434
Charter School–State Projects 1,080,843 6
Charter School–Classroom Site Projects 83,735,374 466
Total $8,776,027,556 $9,474 $1,531,251,510 $8,523
Notes:
1. Includes all reported Maintenance and Operation (M&O), Capital, and “Other” Funding from state, federal, and local sources.
2. Funding and ADM data are from the ADE Annual Report for FY 2017.
3. Per pupil amounts have been computed by dividing funding totals by corresponding ADM counts and, therefore, represent
statewide averages.
20 | UNIDOS USSummary of Federal Funds to Arizona For FY 17*:
Funds for State Formula–Allocated and Selected Student Aid Programs
U.S. Department of Education Funding
Arizona
Amount Change FY Percent Change FY
Program 2017 Estimate 2018 Estimate 2019 Estimate 2018 to 2019 2018 to 2019
Grants to Local Educational Agencies 349,460,833 359,596,712 354,815,247 –4,781,465 –1.3%
State Agency Program–Migrant 7,260,834 7,599,994 8,156,417 556,423 7.3%
State Agency Program–Neglected and Delinquent 1,515,232 1,542,546 1,525,834 –26,712 –1.7%
Subtotal, Education for the Disadvantaged 358,236,899 368,739,252 364,487,498 –4,251,754 -1.2%
Impact Aid Basic Support Payments 163,152,208 174,951,691 179,749,499 4,797,808 2.7%
Impact Aid Payments for Children with Disabilities 4,929,656 5,177,555 5,177,555 0 0%
Impact Aid Construction 0 2,707,076 0 –2,707,076 –100%
Subtotal, Impact Aid 168,081,864 182,836,322 184,927,054 2,090,732 1.1%
Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 32,532,596 35,421,651 38,347,104 2,925,453 8.3%
21st Century Community Learning Centers 25,351,819 26,287,998 26,853,985 565,987 2.2%
State Assessments 7,601,909 7,619,628 7,601,909 -17,719 -.02%
Rural and Low-income Schools Program 1,668,337 1,664,050 1,664,050 0 0%
Small, Rural School Achievement Program 2,229,523 1,681,655 1,681,655 0 0%
Student Support and Academic Enrichment State Grants 8,615,662 24,036,939 0 -24,036,939 -100%
Indian Education—Grants to Local Educational Agencies 10,412,830 11,329,873 10,412,830 -917,043 -8.1%
English Language Acquistion 14,268,915 13,281,914 13,233,011 -48,903 -0.4%
Homeless Children and Youth Education 1,701,414 1,903,346 2,097,151 193,805 10.2%
Subtotal 630,701,768 674,802,628 651,306,247 -23,496,381 -3.5%
Special Education—Grants to States 203,992,020 211,325,866 206,125,905 -5,199,961 0%
Special Education—Preschool Grants 5,168,089 5,426,405 5,171,146 -255,259 -4.7%
Grants for Infants and Families 9,376,561 9,788,556 9,558,171 –230,385 –2.4%
Subtotal, Special Education 218,536,670 226,540,827 220,855,222 -5,685,605 -2.5%
Career and Technical Education State Grants 26,102,449 28,612,665 30,285,548 1,672,883 0%
Subtotal, Vocational and Adult Education 26,102,449 28,612,665 30,285,548 1,672,883 5.8%
Subtotal, All Elementary/Secondary Level Programs 875,340,887 929,956,120 902,447,017 -27,509,103 -3.0%
UNIDOS US | 21
Educational Fairness and Latino Student Success in Arizona
* Fiscal Years 2017-2018 State Tables for the U.S. Department of Education: State tables by State, US Department of Education, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/
statetables/19stbystate.pdf (accessed November 2018).You can also read
