 Today, English language learners, who number 4.7 million students in the United States and equal 10% of the student population nationally, continue in underfunded, segregated programs that do not produce results. In Texas, English language learners number more than 800,000 students and constitute 17% of the student population of Texas, yet 62% of English language learner fourth graders in Texas schools read below grade level 62%. And the 200,000 middle school and high school English language learners in Texas are more than twice as likely to be retained in grade when compared to other students. English language learners in Texas are also one of the lowest academically performing groups of students and the achievement gap widens as students progress through school with less than 10% of English language learners in the state of Texas being considered college ready graduates by state of Texas definition. Less than 10% of English language learners in the state of Texas are considered college ready graduates by Texas definition. And at the same time, the state of Texas fails to fairly fund and to monitor the effectiveness of services and programs for English language learners. Today, Dr. Oscar Jimenez Castellanos, the first Jose Angel Cardenas School Finance fellow, presents his research findings on securing educational equity and excellence for English language learners in Texas secondary schools. A panel of discussants will then explore important implications of the research for education quality and equity in policy and in practice. Over lunch, round table leaders will facilitate further discussion as we explore together your recommendations and your concerns as well as the challenges, the risks of inaction and the payoff of action in providing for high quality education for English language learners. So thank you all for being here this day. Today's inaugural symposium is hosted by the Center for Mexican American Studies and Research here at Our Lady of the Lake University and is being streamed live via now cast San Antonio. Among the many dedicated people who are here today is our host, Dr. Jane Ann Slater, president of Our Lady of the Lake University. Sister Jane Ann has held leadership roles throughout her life. She serves now as the eighth president of this university and has served as a trustee at Our Lady of the Lake University for 12 years. Not once, but twice, she was elected a superior general of the Congregation of Divine Providence, the congregation that founded and sponsors this university. She has been a teacher in elementary and secondary schools in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. Sister Jane Ann holds a PhD in inorganic chemistry from the University of Colorado and served as faculty in chemistry here at Our Lady of the Lake from 1970 to 1981. It was during those years that I met Sister Jane Ann. In those years, como dicen cuando las víboras andaban paradas, she was a young faculty member and I, a work study student in the chemistry department here at Our Lady of the Lake. Then and now, Sister Jane Ann models a style of leadership that encourages challenges and is deeply rooted in a commitment to education for all. Jane Ann works hard, she's visible, she goes beyond the obvious to find solutions that work for students, for families, for communities. As she completes her term as president of Our Lady of the Lake University this summer, she will take on a new challenge as the first woman chancellor for the Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio. Please help me to welcome our host, Sister Jane Ann Slater. Welcome to all of you, we are just delighted that you're here and I can't think of a more appropriate and needed and essential topic. You know, education is not in the mindset of a lot of our legislators. They just think it, they kind of think they ought to control it. They think they know what ought to be in it and they think that building prisons is probably more important than funding education and we know what a mistake that is. We here at Our Lady of the Lake, you know, we're here on the west side of San Antonio and I'm so proud, I'm so happy that we are because our founder, Father John Martin Moy in France wanted us to go out and one of the sisters, he sent them out by ones and twos just prior to the French Revolution into tiny villages in which people didn't have access to education, particularly girls and women had no access. The guys could get to cities sometimes and sometimes they could get to schools but the women and girls could not. We moved here to San Antonio from Castorville in 1895 and there was nothing on this prairie, nothing in the west side and the people of the west side. The Mexican American population grew around us and I know Father Moy is smiling from heaven because he knows we're doing what he founded his sisters to do and having access, we provide a lot of financial support for students who come to Our Lady of the Lake. Most at graduation you get teary eyed when so many students who are first generation stand to be recognized and so providing support for students at Our Lady of the Lake is just a real commitment of ours and providing those services as Kuka mentioned, many students who are learning English and who are first generation really are not prepared by their schools adequately. It's not just Mexican American students, it's other students as well and we know that these students have a right to the quality of education which they deserve. They deserve it and they have the right and we are doing what we can to make that a reality for them. So I'm eager to hear the results of the research. I'm delighted that you're here. Please feel that you're in your home. Come and visit us on other occasions. If you haven't been here many times before, come back and get to know us. Get to know the campus you know, you will always be welcome. So thank you for being here. Thank you for choosing Our Lady of the Lake for this wonderful event and bienvenidos a todos. So I'm going to call you back up for a special presentation. Laura Tobin Cardenas was Jose Cardenas's wife for how many years, Laura? For 42 years, an educator and an early childhood educator in her own right and a wonderful friend of IDRA and those of us who are a part of it will make a special presentation to sister Jane Ann and joining her is Dr. Sally Andrade who is an officer in the IDRA board and from El Paso, Texas. Thank you for having me here. I, a little quick short story. Lucy says, I still call her plus desk secretary but Puka secretary called and said, Laura, do you have a picture of yourself? Do you have a little bio? And I said, Lucy, you don't understand. It was never about me. It was about Jose and his work. And I said, and then it became my work as well. But, and I love, I brought this up because this is what I remember him being, that face and his commitment. I see it every day and he reminds me every day and I'm honored that Puka asked me to make this presentation along with Sally, Dr. Andrade from El Paso who is on the IDRA board. This is a, I'll read the scholarship. It's a $1,000 scholarship presented to our Lady of the Lake University for teacher preparation, English language learners in memory of Jose Carvenas, founder of the Intercultural Development Research Association, presented this day of February the 2nd, 2015. And yes, he is also smiling down from heaven right now. I wish I had had the opportunity to know Dr. Carvenas a little bit better. I met him a couple of times, but I was involved in things not out in those circles. But we know we are the recipients of his legacy and we're so happy that you are continuing and thank you so much and thank you. I know Belinda Shouten, Dr. Belinda Shouten is happy too. So thank you very much. I have a treat for you now. It is my unique privilege to introduce you to our next speaker, State Senator Jose Rodriguez. Senator Rodriguez is a staunch advocate for children and families. He advocates for increased and fair funding for schools. He fights to ensure equal access to the justice system. He has developed and helped stop anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic legislation. He has authored a number of state laws to protect worker rights, to protect equality by repealing the state's unconstitutional anti-gay laws and to increase accountability of local governments and school districts. The Senator was born in Alice, Texas and is the son of migrant farm workers. From an early age he worked in fields throughout the country to help support a family of nine. Senator Rodriguez graduated from Pan American University and received his law degree from George Washington University. In El Paso, which has been his home since 1983, Senator Rodriguez served as El Paso County attorney for 17 years prior to his election into the state Senate. Senator Rodriguez is the chairman of the Senate Hispanic Caucus and a member of the Senate Education Committee for the ongoing 84th legislative session in Austin. Senator Rodriguez is hosting our IDRA policy meeting in Austin tomorrow that will bring today's conversation into policy deliberations at the state level. Thank you Senator Rodriguez for being an advocate for justice and for our kids, help me welcome Senator Rodriguez. Thank you. Thank you very much. Buenos dias. Good morning. It's, you can't imagine what a pleasure it is to be here this morning. You know, IDRA has been inviting me to come and meet with its leadership and Sally Andrade from El Paso has urged me to do so. And I finally, I finally made it and I'm very, very pleased to be here. I wanna thank you, President Slater for having us here and Ms. Cardenas, your husband was, of course, an inspiration for a lot of us back in the day, I guess I would say, when we were trying to bring about change in our communities during el movimiento that carried on for a while and for some of us is still ongoing. And I want you to know that he inspired a lot of us and President Slater, you know, my father-in-law who is now deceased actually came to St. Mary's and got a master's in social work here back in the early 60s. And so he was Santiago Rodriguez, very, very much involved in a lot of these issues. So this place has meaning for me as well and I'm very impressed with what you're doing here. And of course, Dr. Albert Cortez, who has been involved in these issues for so long, I have all nothing but admiration for him and for the work that he's done with Idra. So I wanna offer thanks to you, Puka, and to Albert for having me here for the expertise and leadership you've provided to Idra and for putting this conference together. I think it's very important. And I wanna also thank the community advocates who may be here as well as other professionals who are interested in this subject. And so let me just say that our lieutenant governor, our new lieutenant governor has said that it's a new day in Texas. You may have heard that comment several times. And indeed we do have some new leadership. We have a number of new senators and state representatives. And most importantly, a new session that in my view brings us new opportunities. There's a lot of challenges, as you know, with the makeup of the legislature and the attitudes out there, but I always am optimistic that there's also opportunities. And so it's a new day for me as well as I'll be serving as you heard as a chair of the Senate Hispanic Caucus and also on finally on the Senate Education Committee, which I've been asking the lieutenant governor before to assign me to and Senator Patrick, now Lieutenant Governor Patrick finally did that. So I'm looking very much towards working with you in that committee and bringing to light the importance of the subject that we're talking about today, English language learners, bilingual education and what we need to do. As was said before, you know, as a migrant farm worker, obviously education was the only way for me to get out of the farms and into the courts. I see Albert Kaufman here, one of my heroes. And then of course into the halls of the legislature. I believe that equal educational opportunities should be available to everyone, to all students, regardless of your language or origin, the sort of town you live in and the wealth level of your parents. You know, that's something that we all should always keep in mind. Every other year during the legislative session, we have an opportunity, a tremendous opportunity to make policy decisions that better the lives of all Texans. But unfortunately for far too long, as you know, Latinos and other minorities have not been at the table when decisions, key decisions are being made. And the needs and policy perspective of Latinos and other minorities, including the African American community and the Asian American community have historically been ignored in the state of Texas. Dr. Castellano, coming from Arizona, you should know that. I am hopeful that in this session, despite the campaign rhetoric, a new day in Texas, it's not being more of the same when it comes to Latinos, to English language learners and minority interests. You know, last October, I guess it wasn't last October, time is flying. It was October 2013 after the session ended in 2013. We had the, what we call the Latino Summit in Austin. It was the first time that we had had Latinos from across the state come together in the state capital and talk about the issues that have significance and importance to our community. And of course, when we say to our community, I'm talking about the Latino community, but in reality, if you stop and think about it, all of these issues really have an impact on all our community, whether you're Latino or not. And at that time, the Senate Hispanic Caucus and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, which is on the House of Representatives side, assembled five task forces in the areas of education, healthcare, immigration, economic opportunity and importantly, civic engagement. We had those task forces created for those five areas. They made recommendations for a Latino legislative agenda to be considered. And then we decided, you know, we ought to go out into the community. It's true that we had 150 advocates there, organizations like Maldiv and immigration groups, Lulac. It was a good representation from all sectors of the state, East Texas, North Texas, the Valley and so forth, but we wanted to get input from the community itself. So we decided to go on a road show. If I can put it that way, we get another one in Austin and then we went to, right here to San Antonio and St. Mary's, Elbert was our keynote speaker. We went to Dallas, to Houston, to El Paso and to the Rio Grande Valley. And at these regional summits, we had educators, activists, students, civic leaders, service providers, other elected officials and they were given an opportunity to provide feedback on the recommendations that had been made by the five task forces. And these discussions, I have to tell you were meaningful. They began the process and I say began the process of developing a Latino policy agenda that is informed by the community. From the bottom up and not just from the top down. Now the findings of the summits and the policy recommendations were released just last week in a report that we issued at the state capitol at our press conference. We entitled the agenda framing a Latino policy agenda for the 84th legislature, a Texas sized opportunity to improve the lives of Latinos across the state. Now let's get to the area of education. We found out that Latinos like everyone else, no surprise, overwhelmingly want their schools better funded. We found that parents want their kids to have equal opportunity to learn regardless of where they live, whether it be in the south side or the north side regardless of whether they are poor or middle class or an English language learner. 76% of the participants, and by the way, the participant level range from 50 to over 100 people at these summits. 76% of the participants of the Latino Education Task Force identified school finance, Albert, as the highest priority. In each of the regional summits across the state school finance was named as a number one issue that should be addressed in the 84th legislative session. Specifically, I wanna go over our recommendations on school finance. They included fully restoring the budget cuts from the 2011 legislative session and accounting for inflation and growth in student enrollment, phase out the whole harmless funding measures within two years and run state funding through the formulas. And update the cost of education index study to accurately reflect current local and regional variances in operational costs. Increase the funding weights for English language learners and economically disadvantaged students and base these weights on actual cost of successful programs, which of course brings us to today's topic, securing educational equity and excellence for English language learners. Now, you probably have heard that the Lieutenant Governor, Patrick and Governor Abbott want to put up the school finance issue and complying with the Texas constitutional mandates until after the Texas Supreme Court rules on the case, which now is estimated to be sometime maybe in 2016. But I wanna submit to you that this is not mean that we cannot push them to make more changes in the right direction when it comes to English language learners this session. And I for one plan to put the issues of the English language learner students front and center during my time on the Senate Education Committee. According to the TEA's March and Roman report, English language learners make up 15% of the Texas student body, which is higher than the national average of 10%. But in communities along the border, the number is nearly 30%. These percentages we know will only continue to increase given the demographic changes. This poses a challenge for Texas and an opportunity I want to emphasize. Demographic changes in our country require a different approach when educating large numbers of children who are not proficient in English. These children who will make up our future labor force will be either limited in English proficiency or will be proficient in two or more languages. We have the opportunity to choose and decide which one will serve us and the state of Texas and the nation better. The Texas Association for Bilingual Education, President Vivian Pratz said it best when she said quote bilingual education is an investment in Texas future because it is economic development of our workforce and fully funding education will determine our viability for generations to come. Unquote. We cannot continue to ignore the plight of English language learners and economically disadvantaged students and hope that a cure magically happens. Nor do I believe that a voucher scheme will suddenly get school districts to miraculously develop some innovative new program to close the achievement gaps with less resources. So what will work? Well, let's look at at least four approaches, some of which I noticed are in the pamphlets that were handed out. Let's talk about adequate funding, supporting programs that work, teacher preparation and school accountability for English language students. So first and foremost, I believe we should start with funding English language learner student populations at the levels that the research says it costs. I have filed Senate Bill 161 relating to bilingual education allotment provided under the public school finance system. Numerous studies, Idra studies show not only the cognitive, social and health benefits of being bilingual, but the economic benefit as well. Experts such as Idra recommend an additional 30 to 40% in funding for students in bilingual and English as a second language programs. However, today's funding formula, which hasn't been updated since 1984, adds only 10% as an added weight. Senate Bill 161 would boost that to 25%. Current Texas funding formulas for bilingual education and ESL program service delivery do not reflect the actual costs for providing instructional services. Funding of the program should be based on actual costs rather than arbitrary allocations. All children should be provided all the resources needed to be successful in school, particularly ensuring access to equitable and excellent public schools accountable to their communities. Second, we should support the programs and curriculum that are working. Another bill I filed, Senate Bill 159 relates to the certification requirements for dual language. Dual language programs typically immerse students in instruction that is half in one language and half in the other. Dual language programs have proven to be more effective than other programs that serve English language learner students and have the added benefit of enriching the, excuse me, English dominant students with instruction in another language. In the type of dual language programs prevalent in the El Paso Independent School District, for example, and many other places around the state, the teacher of the English language program component of the program is certified in English as a second language and but typically not certified in bilingual education. National experts such as Collier and Thomas as well as experts from the University of Texas at El Paso assert that the Spanish component of the dual language program should require bilingual certification. That makes sense. They do not believe, however, that certification should be required for the English component teacher but that ESL endorsement with professional development is the best combination for delivering a dual language program. But due to changes by the TEA when two parts of the education code were combined several years ago, teachers in the English language component of the dual language program are now required to be bi-lingually certified. This requires that Paso ISD and others across the state to apply for an exception or waiver every year because the ESL teachers are not certified in bilingual education. Senate Bill 159 would remove the unnecessary barriers and hopefully encourage more schools to expand effective dual language programs throughout the state which will benefit thousands of students. I want to be clear that this bill does not undermine the teacher certification requirements for non-dual language programs or for Spanish instruction. It applies only to the English component of dual language programs. As you know, there are four bilingual program models specifically identified in statute. Senate Bill 159 affects only one way and two way language programs. Third, we need to make sure that our teachers are prepared to teach the English language learner students. Our task force recommended that we improve teacher preparation for those ELL students. We need to invest additional resources to expand the capacity of teacher preparation programs to more effectively serve our diverse populations. All administrators and teachers serving ELL students including teachers of core content, area courses, should at a minimum complete six semester credit hours of higher education coursework in ESL methodology or equivalent professional development. All teachers and administrators serving these students should be required to undergo ongoing professional development. Fully certified teachers with academic and social competencies will ensure that students reach their original or optimal potential. You may remember the Senator Vendiput filed this legislation in 2011. I am taking a look at it at this session as well and see if we can do something about that. Lastly, we need to make sure that our schools are accountable to the English language learner students. And at Pasoay is these school board members who are attempting to circumvent their accountability by it was referred to in El Paso disappearing English language learner students and other students that would likely not meet their testing standards, the tax test standards at the time. So last session I passed a series of bills to ensure that those schools remain accountable. And our task force recommended that we improve the accountability and review process for bilingual education and ESL programs by requiring state monitors to have bilingual and ESL certification. Furthermore, programs should be monitored at the campus level. That's preventing successful bilingual programs in elementary schools from masking, failing ESL programs in secondary schools. Senator Zafferini has led this effort in the past and I'm gonna continue supporting her on the Senate Education Committee in this regard. So in conclusion, I want to say that when we opened the session, we were grappling with a change in the Senate rules, famous two third rule. And I made some comments during the floor debate that were critical of ending the two thirds rule which for over 60 years has worked to encourage bipartisan work in the Senate by requiring the two thirds of the 31 senators through bringing a bill up for debate and for discussion on the Senate floor. And I said at that time that changing that rule and it was changed from two thirds to three fifths. Now it requires instead of 21 senators, it will require 19 and you may say, well, that's not that big of a difference as Senator Patrick said, but you have 20 Republicans in the Senate and 11 of us Democrats so easily now, 19 Republicans can pass whatever they want. And I said the changing of the rule would result in minority voices being diminished in the state. I hope that I'm proven wrong. I hope that these policy recommendations from our task forces, from our local communities and the experts here today will be given serious consideration. And I think it's gonna take all of us working together to ensure that that happens. So we need your help in the Texas legislature. We need either as expertise. We will need Maldives attorneys. David, where is David? And Selena in the courtroom and in the legislative halls. I'm sorry, excuse me. More importantly, I think we're gonna be needing the parents and the community activists, the people who were concerned about the education of our children. We're gonna need all of us working together to demand action from our elected officials and to come to our hearings and share their stories. That is critical. And I tell people, it's not enough anymore to just simply send a letter the old fashioned way to put in a phone call, to now use social media. All of those things are important and we should utilize all of those. But I think it is critical that you all come to the Capitol, attend the hearings, testify at the hearings, make your voices heard with a governor, with a lieutenant governor, with the chairs of the Senate Education Committee and the House Education Committee and demand, insist that these changes are necessary. The judge has already said in his school finance decision that we are not investing at the level we should for English language learner students and low income students. We shouldn't have to wait for the Texas Supreme Court three years down the line to tell us that we need to do something different. We can do it now. The two bills that I've filed are just a step in that direction, but there's others that we need to also file and we're gonna need support from you on all of those. And so let me just close with a reference to our former state demographer who most of you I'm sure have heard, Dr. Steve Murdock. He has warned us for years, for years that if we continue to ignore the needs of the Latino and other minority communities, in this state, we ignore the future of Texas at our own peril. We ignore the future of Texas at our own peril. So, vamos adelante y muchas gracias por la oportunidad. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Senator, thank you. You can count on us to speak Kajol push and any and every other way we know, make sure that everyone knows that every child has in fact, a right to a high quality education, muchísimas gracias por su trabajo. Mentioned two names and they are two names I want to point out together with others as I ask the 2014 advisory committee for the Jose Angel Caranas School Finance Fellows Program to please stand. Dr. David Inojosa, Regional Counsel for Maldiff. Thank you, David. Ms. Elina Moreno, Legislative Staff Attorney for Maldiff also was part of the committee. And Mr. Al Kaufman, Professor of Law at St. Mary's University. You will see Al soon as the facilitator for the upcoming panel. Norma Cantu, Professor of Education and Professor at Law at UT Law School was also part of the committee and not able to join us today. My deepest thanks to David, Selina, Al and Norma for their partnership not only in this program but throughout the years as we address issues for our kids. I'm going to turn the program over to one IDRA staff person who together with everyone at IDRA continues every day in every way that they know how to work for equal educational opportunity for all children. And especially as I introduce our facilitator I want to thank Dr. Albert Cortes, Christy Goodman and Laurie Posner who have been the core team in bringing us together today. Thank you Albert at all. Albert is Director of Policy for IDRA and knows these issues back and forth in and out a long time ago and currently and we have the benefit of his being here today. He's also by the way an alumnus of Our Lady of the Lake. I met Albert when he worked at the financial aid office here at the lake and I lived at the financial aid office here at the lake as a student. So that's when we met. I'll leave you now in the hands of Dr. Bradley Scott, Dr. Bradley Scott is the Director of our Equity Assistance Center. He works to make sure that equity and excellence are available to students in federal region six, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. And Bradley will be our facilitator and guide for the rest of today. Thank you Krueger. Let me say good morning to everybody and we are truly happy to have you here. There is no better place that you could be today than here in this room. Dr. Slater, we have a brain trust in this room today. Ready? I hope to do good work. Just a few things that I want to mention in terms of how we need to conduct our business. By the way, do me a favor. Just look at your neighbor to your right or left. Look him in the face and say you are looking good and you are good looking. Oh, don't be embarrassed. Look him in the face and say that. Turn to your other side, that other person. Don't leave that person out and say you are looking good and you are good looking. Yeah, yeah, just say that to each other. It's important. Listen, we have a lot of things to do today but I just want to give you a few things that will guide how we need to conduct ourselves to make sure that we stay on time. We have a lot of ground to cover today, a lot of things to do and we're going to adjourn by 2.30. So that means we have to come, stay in this room mentally and physically as much as we can but I know that you're all busy people. So if you need to excuse yourself, go out and do whatever you need to do but then hurry back to your tables, to your discussion groups because it will be important. We don't want to miss a single opportunity to hear what you have to say, to hear what's on your mind, to understand your points of view about these important issues that we are dealing with with regards to English language learners here in the state of Texas. We have these pictures constantly being presented to you because when adults come together, sometimes we get wrapped up in our egos and we should not be there where these kids are concerned. Sometimes we get wrapped up in our own agenda and we should not be there unless that agenda is focused on the kids of the state of Texas, these English language learners about whom we have great concerns. So I want to remind you to stay engaged about these young men and women that you see in front of you and let the best of what you've come to do be focused on them. That will be extremely important. I would ask you to keep in mind that we have now past live streaming and throughout the day in your discussion groups, if some of you want to take a moment to go back, they would love to interview you as a part of what is going on in a live way. Sometimes the photographers will be coming among the tables to hear what you have to say and streaming some of that. So don't let that distract you from the work that you are doing, that you're doing. During lunch, you should also feel free to go back and if there are things on your mind that you want to share, not only with the group in this room, but around this city and as far as now cast extends, you can also make those things known. And by the way, in this gathering where we normally ask you to turn off your telephones, I want you to keep them on, just turn off the ringers, keep on the vibrators. But use all of the social media that Senator Ronald Reed was talking about as a way of treating your thoughts, Facebooking with your own networks, et cetera, to get your thoughts out in the world and the networks that you deal with. Feel free to do that. We would welcome you're doing those kinds of things. There are scheduled breaks, but as I said before, if you need to excuse yourself for whatever reason, do that and come back quickly and reconnect with your table and with the discussions with whom you are working. And I hope that as we are working throughout the day, that you just keep yourselves connected and engaged. Keep your table mates focused in the work that you'll be doing and the issues that you'll be dealing with and the questions that you'll be responding to, because all of that will be important to end up. And we just want this to be a good productive day, not only for us here, so that you won't feel like it's a waste of your time to have been here, but also for the English language learners here in the state of Texas. That will be hugely important. Okay, I think I've talked enough. Are there any questions? We do, but I understand, President Slater, that it's not strong and it doesn't extend well. Okay. There is some Wi-Fi available, but we understand that it's not as robust as it might need to be. So some of you may be able to connect, others of you may not. We just understand that's a technical situation that we'll be dealing with. Any other questions? Dr. Cortez has asked me to be mindful of keeping us on time, so I will sound over-ish as I keep reminding people about time and making sure that we aren't overextending the bounds of time for the different sections of this gathering today, but that's not my personality normally, so don't hold it against me. I just know that I've been charged with this task and I will do it as best I can. Let me turn things over to Dr. Cortez so that we can get into the business of the morning. Dr. Albert Cortez. Good morning. Let me first start by noting that when I first entered school here in San Antonio, I was a speaker of a language other than English. Over at Las Palmas Elementary School, which has located a few blocks from the southwest corner of this campus, I was recently reminded I was a limited English proficient or LEP individual later in life because at a meeting being up in Austin by the State Education Agency, I was part of an advisory panel on ELL assessment and the placard placed in front of my name at the front table of the gathering red Dr. Albert Cortez Bash LEP. So I was reminded, yeah, I was a LEP and I was there representing the interests of limited English proficient students. Like millions of children who enrolled in US schools, not speaking English as fluently as their speakers, which was most of my neighborhood neighbors and myself. We were all put in programs which were later labeled sink or swim. They should have called those programs survive or drown. They should have called those programs what they were. In those early days when there were no programs required for English language learners in Texas or frankly anywhere in the country, most of my fellow LEP friends wound up drowning in the waters of Texas and US public school systems. No longer can any of us stand and watch as millions of current English learners, students, sink or swim. And I know that those of you in this room are committed to a much better future for all of our ELL students. Wherever they may be attending school, whether it be in Texas, Arizona, or any part of this country. As we reflect on how and why the discussions we are going to embark on today are significant, all of us need to keep in mind that students and especially low income minority and certainly ELL students can suffer brave consequences when policymakers or educators fail to provide the correct educational responses that effectively address their unique educational needs. We all know that students who are failed by schools and educators do not get to go on to the next grade level. We know they do not get to go across the stage in front of their families to get their high school diplomas. They do not go on to college in any significant numbers. They do not get a fair chance at a good life as many of us in this room may have eventually gotten. When we do not effectively educate our ELL students, we as a community lose them and lose all that they might have contributed to our collective well-being. The data on the status of ELL students in our schools indicate that we lose far too many of our English learner students. And all too often, this data also reflects that we lose them early before the age of nine or 10 and many more by the age of 13 and 14. And we all recognize that the consequences of our school's failure stay with us, stay with not just for a few months or a few weeks or even a few years, but those failing of our ELL students last for our lifetime and more importantly, for the life times of those individuals. So as I was asked to open this portion of our discussion today by discussing the significance of the research we will be hearing about that focuses on ELL students and the implications of that research, I felt that to frame the ELL issues we plan to talk about as merely significant did not do justice to their importance. Through the research we will, though the research we will hear in a few minutes is significant, the conversations we'll be having today to me are really much, much more than merely significant. For me and for all of us here today, the importance of how we can more effectively educate English language learner students, all ELL students and especially secondary level ELL students is something more than significant. It is critical, it is life changing and it is urgent. Something we need to improve right here, right now, starting today. The issue of improving the education of ELL students in Texas and around the country is urgent because we can't afford to lose even one more of the precious resources that every one of our ELL students represents. A cut on your leg that needs treatment is significant. If you stand a chance of bleeding to death, due to lack of appropriate treatment for a major condition, that is not significant. It is critical, it is urgent, it is extremely important. So we ask what do we need to do to address this urgent situation? We need good research to inform us about where we are, more research on what works and how we expand those efforts and ultimately we need to know about those efforts that have been proven to be successful in effectively of addressing our ELL students at the elementary, middle and certainly high school levels. We've heard much about the numbers of ELL students in Texas, 863,000 in the country, 4.7 million. The numbers have grown exponentially over the last a decade and they will continue to grow over the following years. So the need to do something urgent and the need to do something now grows ever more critical. IDRA has a long history of informing policy and practice through the research, through its research on English language related issues, including our pioneering efforts in developing cost estimates of bilingual programs. One of them that by Dr. Amariel Govlel Monticell, our president CEO. We've also done a national study of exemplary bilingual programs and research on the effects of inequitable school finance systems on our ELL students. In our inaugural Jose Angel Carnaz School Finance Fellows Program application process, we accepted a proposal that would inform that urgent issue of how to identify high schools that were effectively serving ELL secondary schools, students and once those were identified to determine how much funding was needed to support having all high schools achieve higher levels of ELL student achievement. Our first ever Jose Angel Carnaz School Finance Fellow was born in Mexico but grew up in the streets of Sacramento, California. Dr. Oscar Jimenez Castellanos is currently a tenured associate professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. He has published extensively in the areas of K-12 education finance, education policy reform, policy engagement, parent engagement, focusing much of his work on equity and outcomes in low income, ethnically and linguistically diverse communities. His work has been published in major journals including the Review of Education Research Journal of Education Finance, Bilingual Education Research Journal among others. His book, Bicultural Parent Engagement, Empowerment and Advocacy received the 2012 AERA Critics Choice Award. He was honored in 2011 as a 2011 acting director of the University Research Council on Education. Here today, to share with us for the first time in a public forum, the results of the first Jose Angel Carnaz Research Fellows Program is Dr. Oscar Jimenez Castellano, Oscar. Because Bradley reminded me that we need to stay on time. I'll go ahead and sort of begin at least my introduction while we set up the PowerPoint. First of all, my name is Oscar Jimenez Castellanos. I'm humbled and honored to be the first Jose Cardenas School Finance Fellow. I wanna thank Kuka and in particular Albert for their guidance and mentorship and including all of the Idra staff who were very supportive during my residency last summer. I believe Texas is truly blessed to have such wonderful organizations such as Idra. Again, thank you to Our Lady of the Lake for hosting this event. I am a former migrant educator, a migrant student, mini-core student, and a bilingual dual-language teacher. I received my MA in Policy Studies from San Diego State University and PhD in an emphasis on school finance and policy at Claremont Graduate University. I was trained by someone who developed the Economic Impact Aid in California, which is the funding mechanism for ELLs, Dr. Ruben Espinoza. And I was lucky enough to be a Ford Foundation post-doctoral scholar with Anthony Rol previously at Texas A&M and now at the University of Houston. And most recently through this award with Dr. Albert Cortez, who has such a legacy in terms of school finance here in Texas and across the country. I'm currently an associate professor at Arizona State University and a Morrison Institute Fellow and a National Education Finance Conference Fellow. The study for today is entitled, Examining School Funding and Academic Achievement for Secondary English Language Learners in Texas. My presentation is ambitious and given the limited amount of time, hopefully I will not glance over too many components of it, but the nice thing about today's presentation is the format of this event, which will allow ample discussion even after the presentation and I will be around throughout the day to answer any of your questions or concerns. I think most of us here today are aware and it has been reiterated at the introduction, the importance and the focus of ELLs. More and more students are entering our educational system with a primary language other than English. Nationally, over 11 million square children between the ages of five and 17 speak a language other than English at home. That means one out of nine students. Texas has over 800,000 students or 17% English language learners in their K-12 system. Ultimately, similarly, and was reiterated by the senator, similarly to the Latino population, the prosperity of English language learners in our educational system has significant economic and social implications for the United States. The better ELL students do in our educational system, the more productive our economy will be thus helping Texas in their tax revenue and our economy nationwide. There is a myth that ELLs are a monolithic and homogeneous group, ELLs. However, ELLs are a diverse, as diverse as any other group of students. They come from different socioeconomic backgrounds with parents with varying educational levels. Immigrant students come from countries across the globe speaking different languages, many times already bilingual. Yet most are native born. For instance, in Texas, 59% of secondary students and 85% of elementary ELL students are born in the United States. ELLs have a varying degree of language proficiency when they begin and across their trajectory. The number of ELLs tend to be lower in secondary schools as compared to elementary schools, obviously. This is due to the fact that many ELL students are reclassified to fluent English proficient by the time that they reach the secondary grade levels. At the secondary level, there are three primary types of ELLs, long-term ELLs, those who have been classified ELLs for more than six years. Recent arrivals included undocumented youth, refugees, and those that come via another system. And I would add reclassified ELLs. And each of these three types of ELLs I will discuss a little bit further in the presentation. There are many challenges faced by ELLs in our K-12 system. They tend to have higher poverty and mobility rates. They attend more segregated schools, as Guca mentioned, and tend to, that tend to be underfunded and unsafe. At the secondary level, one of the primary challenges is the limited amount of time they have to learn English and content. While having high-stakes testing with significant consequences, such as not graduating or being college-ready, they have significance across their lifespan. This has already been talked about. Unfortunately, ELLs are one of the lowest academically-performing groups of students in our K-12 system. They're typically a large achievement gap between ELLs and their native English-speaking peers that increases over time, not decreases. Texas defines an ELL student as a student whose primary language is other than English and whose English language skills are such that the student has difficulty performing ordinary classwork in English. So that's sort of our baseline definition here in the state of Texas. And again, I'm from Arizona, so making things obvious. I have to admit, before conducting the study, I had a perception, maybe a bit naive, that Texas was at the leading edge of educating English-language learners. Coming from Arizona, an anti-immigrant, with high anti-immigrant sentiment, ELL education policy that commonly violates civil rights and goes contrary to research-based decision-making. And also, based on Texas' experience in education ELLs, it's not a newcomer state, right? We've been having English-language learners for generations and generations, obviously being part of the Southwest. And a law promoting, as the senator said, by literacy, at least in theory, I was expected to find real solutions to national issues related to secondary English-language learners. Texas does have four different types of bilingual models and two different special language programs, a pull-out method and an ELD model available to students. In 2012, about 300,000 of 800,000 students were enrolled in a special language program, mostly in the secondary level. I will not try to preempt my entire presentation, but the results reveal that Texas is not the utopia for secondary English-language learners that I believe I would find. The Texas Foundation School Program funds public schools in Texas through state revenue funds based on the average daily attendance. Primarily, the tier one funding consists of a basic lawman per pupil and a series of weighted adjustments that account for differences in student and district characteristics. This is very similar to many other states across the nation. Texas HB72, as was referred earlier, that was enacted in 1984, developed a weighted revenue component as part of the FSP for students needing bilingual special language instructional programs. The final negotiated, and I do want to emphasize negotiated, weighting of the bilingual component of the FSP was in the amount of 0.1, 10% more per ELL student, was lower than the estimated generated amount in the then current research that was conducted by Jose Cardenas. The weighting factor unchanged since its inception is largely based on legislative, political, and fiscal considerations of the time, not on empirical evidence of student learning needs. Texas funds bilingual students served in bilingual SLP programs, not all ELL students, this varies from other states, meaning you need to be enrolled in these four different bilingual programs and these two special language programs to actually receive funding, not just having an ELL gives you that automatic funding. A school needs 20 or more bilingual students in a single grade level to provide these programs, or at least to be mandated to provide these programs. Approximately 50,000 ELL students in 2012 did not receive this funding. Here are the adjustments or weights for district and student characteristics. You will know that the bilingual weight is the lowest out of all of these adjusted weights at a 0.1 again. Compare that to special education that has 12 different weights, not just one with a varying weight of 1.7, not 0.71, 1.7 and 5.0, meaning five times more. Before I tell you, let me get a drink of water. Before I tell you the purpose of the study, let me tell you what it is not. It does not focus on examining issues of equity based on concentration of poverty, Latino or ELLs. You could see either as work, my work, the equity center's work, other folks' works on that. That has been done previously. It is not an efficiency analysis. You could see my article with Anthony Roll, 2014. It is not an empirical cost study analysis to determine using one of the cost study methods to determine the actual cost. This study hopes to place at the analytical focus, secondary ELLs and their academic achievement to examine the role funding plays. Now, it is important to note that there are two ongoing Texas lawsuits, one that deals primarily with school finance and issues of adequacy, equity and efficiency, and another one that focuses on the overall education of secondary English language learners. So this provides the policy context to some extent of my work. I have five questions that I hope to cover. One, how many secondary schools met Texas's academic benchmark with English language learners, which is 75% or more of those students' meeting standardized tests? Are there any statistical differences in school characteristics and expenditures per pupil using general funds between the highest and lowest performing secondary schools? So I am not putting the analytical focus on the concentration of English language learners. It's more comparing those that are achieving and those that are not, and what are the differences in expenditure per pupil? What do principles of secondary schools that met Texas's ELL academic benchmark believe contribute to their success? So I did some interviews for that. And what are some characteristics of effective secondary schools with English language learners? I will share some of what the literature says about that. And what does the current literature tell us about the cost to adequately fund English language learners? A study that was published in the review of educational research by myself and a graduate student in 2012. Data were gathered from the Public Educational Information Management System, PIMS, and the Academic Excellence Indicator System managed by the Texas Educational Agency. The unit of analysis is individual school level data. General funds, as I mentioned before, not total funds expenditure data were used in this analysis. General funds are those that come from state and local sources. So that is what the funding mechanism actually is programmed to oversee. If you look at total expenditures, you include federal funding, which is outside of the scope of the state of Texas. Data were collected for three academic years, 2010, 11, and 12. These are the most recent years available for both IES and PIMS data to be merged publicly available. All secondary schools in Texas were stratified by quintiles based on the 10th grade tax, all test passing rates for ELLs. A one-way or noble comparison of means analysis was conducted to examine the difference in school characteristics and expenditure levels between the highest and lowest ELL achievement quintile schools. So here are some of the results. I stratified the ELL achievement quintiles instead of filtering for schools that met Texas's academic bank barge to have 75% of all students, including ELLs, pass standardized tests because of the results of this initial slide. There are very, very, very few schools that met Texas's academic benchmark for ELLs. Less than 20 schools in any given year in this study, representing between two and 2.5% of schools statewide met the benchmark. Only two schools in the state of Texas sustained academic performance across three years. Another significant result is that 60% of the schools had masked or missing data. This suggests that there are many schools with less than five ELLs students tested. Thus, they do not need to report their findings. So are there any statistical differences in school characteristics and expenditures for people between the highest and lowest performing secondary schools in Texas? I will note here you will have different variables that measure different types of achievement, all of them standardized. 10th grade ELL tax passing rate for all tests, participation in advanced courses, attendance rate, college readiness, although you will note that the N is very small for that variable, so I will not include it in much of my discussion. N graduation rate, all with the focus on English language learners. Some of the results, for the bottom four quartiles, so 80% or so of the schools, averaged less than 50% of ELLs students passing 10th grade tax for the all tests. They averaged less than 15% participation rate in AP courses. For the bottom three quartiles, acquaintiles, they averaged between 50 and 55% graduation rate. The top quintile, those schools that were highest achieving, had an average of 87% of ELL students passing 10th grade tax, compared to 10% for the bottom quintile, the lowest performing group, a gap of 77%. The top quintile has an average of 36% ELL AP participation rate, advanced placement participation rate, compared to 11% in the bottom quintile, a gap of 25%. The top quintile has an average of 95% ELL attendance rate, compared to 93% for the bottom quintile, a gap of 2%. The top quintile has an average of 78% ELL graduation rate, compared to 50% in the bottom quintile, a gap of 28%. All of these school academic performance differences between the top and bottom quintiles are statistically significantly different. Here you will see the results for school demographics. Percent mobility, campus size, percent bilingual, ESL or ELL, percent economically disadvantaged poverty, percent enrolled in special education, and percent minority. The bottom four quintiles average between 19 to 25% mobility, and average between 1500 to 2000 in campus size. The bottom three quintiles average between 58 to 62% poverty, average between 10 to 12% students in special ed and average between 73 and 78% minority. The top quintile has an average of 15% mobility, compared to 20% for the bottom quintile, a gap of 5%. The top quintile has an average of 800 campus size, compared to 1900 for the bottom quintile, a gap of 1100. The top quintile has an average of 6% ELL, compared to 9% for the bottom quintile, a gap of 3%. The top quintile has an average of 50% poverty, compared to 62% in the bottom quintile, a gap of 12%. The top quintile has an average of 8% special ed, compared to 11% for the bottom quintile, a gap of 3%. The top quintile has an average of 60% minority, compared to 78 for the bottom quintile, a gap of 18%. All of these school demographic differences between the top and bottom quintiles are statistically significant, except for the percentage of English language learners. Again, this is 2010 data, and the focus was on general funds for the school expenditures. The top quintile and the different variables include total expenditures, the cost of instruction, the cost of regular programs, and then other expenditures, and the expenditures for students with disabilities. These were the four or five major categories of expenditures in the state of Texas. That's why they were selected. Again, so comparing the top and the bottom, right? The top being the highest achieving, the bottom being the lowest achieving. The top quintile has an average of 7,500 total expenditure per pupil compared to 7,100 for the bottom quintile, a gap of $400. The top quintile has an average of 5,000 instructional costs per pupil compared to 4,750 for the bottom quintile, a gap of $250 per pupil. The top quintile has an average of $44,450 for the regular program per pupil compared to 3,900 for the bottom quintile, a gap of $550. The top quintile has an average of 1,350 for other expenditures per pupil compared to 900 for the bottom quintile, a gap of $450. The top quintile has an average of $550 for disability expenditure per pupil compared to 750 for the bottom quintile, a gap of 200. Three school expenditure per pupil differences between the top and bottom quintiles are statistically significant. One, the funding in regular programs, other expenditure, and special ed. With the regular program expenditure per pupil and other expenditures, the top quintile expended significantly more than the bottom quintile. With special ed, even though there were more special ed in the bottom quintile, the top quintile received more funding for special ed, interestingly. However, in this year, 2010, total expenditure per pupil, there was no, although there was a gap of 400, it was not statistically significant. So here are just a couple of graphs for those of us who are visual learners of the same information that I just presented. So I will not reiterate what I said, but just for you to sort of compare the differences. And these are, for 2010, the comparison of top and bottom quintiles for school characteristics, which include achievement and demographics. And here's the graph for the expenditure data for 2010. As you will see, schools that are achieving better with English language learners are expending more money. So there's this myth that money doesn't matter, that, oh my God, look at the Title I score that's receiving all of this extra funding. But here, the data is showing that schools that do better with ELLs need more resources or at least expend more resources. 2010, I will do a synopsis of the results for 2011 academic performance. These results are very similar to 2010, very similar. The gap in passing rates for tax, 71%. The gap in AP participation rate, 23%. The gap in attendance rate, 2.5%. The gap in ELL graduation, 23%. So again, all of these school academic performance differences between the top and bottom quintiles are statistically significantly different. The demographic data for 2011, very similar to 2010. The gap in mobility, 4%. The gap in campus size, 650. Lower, but still statistically significant. The gap in the percentage of ELLs, 3%. The gap in poverty, 12%. The gap in special ed, 13%. The gap in percent minority, 13%. Again, all of these school demographic differences between the top and bottom quintiles are statistically significant. Even the bilingual, the percent bilingual or the percent ELL, even though there was just 1% more. 2011 school expenditure data. Similar, yet here we begin to see some significant differences to 2010. The gap in total expenditure, remember it wasn't statistically significant? Now it is in 2011. Although it's similar in size, about $400 per pupil. The gap in instructional expenditure is $200 per pupil. Similar, still not statistically significant. The gap in regular program expenditure per pupil increases to $600 per pupil. And now it's statistically significant or continues to be statistically significant. The gap in other expenditure is $500, continues to be statistically significant. And the gap in disability expenditure per pupil is $150, but now it's reversed. Now we see that the bottom quintile is now receiving more funding, $150 per pupil. But it is not statistically significant difference. Again, here are a couple of the graphs for the 2011 data and for the expenditure data. So very similar pattern. The gap in some cases are increasing. Finally, in 2012. Academic performance data, again, very similar to 2010 and 2011. All of the school academic performance differences between the top and bottom quintiles are statistically significant. 2012 school demographic data, very similar to 2010 and 2011. However, the gap in the percent poverty has decreased between the two quintiles, the top and bottom quintile. And the gap in minority has decreased. All of these school demographic differences between the top and bottom quintiles are statistically significant, except again bilingual, the percent ELL between the top and bottom is not statistically significant. Similar to 2010. And the 2012 school expenditure data, which I think sort of illuminates the major trend in the study. An emerging trend that builds from the 2010 and 2011 academic years. The gap in total expenditure per pupil between the top and bottom quintile is now 800 per pupil. It has increased. It has approached statistically significantly different. The gap in instructional expenditure per pupil between the top and bottom quintile is now $600 per pupil. It has increased and is now approaching statistically significantly different. The gap in regular program per pupil between the top and bottom quintile is now $1,000 per pupil. Increased continues to be statistically significantly different. The gap in other expenditure per pupil between the top and bottom quintile is 500. It is very similar, consistent across years and continues to be statistically significantly different. The gap in disability expenditure per pupil between the top and bottom quintile is now $300 per pupil. Again, with the bottom quintile, we're seeing more funding for that. But it is not statistically significant. Here are, again, a couple graphs. So what are some major findings? The majority of secondary schools have massed ELL achievement data. The majority of secondary schools have massed ELL achievement data across years. Again, over 60% are not reporting. Very few secondary school, Texas schools are meeting academic benchmarks for English language learners. Again, less than 20 for each year if we use the 10th grade tax data and only two sustained it over a period of the three years. There is a significant achievement gap between the lowest and highest yellow achievement quintile schools, about 70, 75% between the two quintiles. There is a significant difference in the school demographics between the lowest and highest yellow achievement quintile schools, except the percentage of ELLs were not statistically significant for two of those years, meaning they were relatively the same percentages between the two quintiles. The highest yellow achievement quintile schools expend significantly more general funds than the lowest ELL achievement quintiles, meaning those schools that do better with ELLs spend more money. I was given the five minute warning four minutes ago. So I will wrap this up very quickly. So I will skip over many slides but this PowerPoint will be made available. Efidra obviously allows it to be available. What do principals of secondary schools that met ELL academic benchmarks believe contribute to their success? So this was from interviews. So I invited all the principals that were meeting from the schools that were meeting the academic benchmark for ELLs to participate in the study. Only four volunteered to participate. And these were some of the themes that's what seemed to matter to attain or meet academic benchmarks, having high expectations for ELLs, creating a culture of family, sort of going to that authentic caring that Dr. Valenzuela talks about and collaboration. These are our kids. We will not let them fail is the attitude. They come with us, they're gonna graduate with us. Having highly trained and motivated teachers and staff to serve the ELLs. And all principals said, more resources are needed to sustain high ELL academic performance. Again, only two of them were able to do that. So this is what I will glance over so quickly. It will, you will not see it. But what does the literature say? There needs to be a focus. And here, coherent assessment or language, literacy, content and other instructional needs. So this is not saying just one standardized test score. This is saying we need to look and assess at ELLs realistically. Adjusting instructional planning on student performance. So database decision making is critical. Now, remember I mentioned that there was three primary types of ELLs, right? So what seems to work or matter with reclassified ELLs? Because there's a myth that just because they're reclassified they're fine. They could be mainstreamed and be left alone. No, first of all, there needs to be proper and accurate reclassification. Support and monitoring after reclassification. And contrary to some, again, popular belief more rigorous curriculum, not watered down curriculum is needed for reclassified ELLs. What seems to matter with the recent arrivals? Fundamentally, we need to build upon their background knowledge, what they come from, right? It's sort of the funds of knowledge that Rhys Mol talks about. Programs matter. Those that weren't bilingual programs and had native language experiences did better. Interaction with peers and culture matters. So Arizona's four-hour segregation model does not work. And we're seeing that in Arizona. Again, purposeful and intentional instruction. What seems to matter with long-term ELLs? And these represent over half of the secondary ELLs between 59 and 70% of English language learners from the secondary level are long-term ELLs. First of all, don't give up. Don't give up just because they've been long-term ELLs. Developing specialized, purposeful, creative, and rigorous instruction as Lori Olson found in her study. So quickly, two minutes? Very good. Two minutes, because this I think is relevant to the conversations that you guys will have. What does the current literature say about adequately funding English language learners? So I will skip over what are cost studies. You can ask me privately. So what does the cost study literature tell us? Fundamentally, states are not allocating sufficient funds to adequately educate the general K-12 population. And obviously this includes English language learners. And they do not accurately reflect the diversity and complexity of who English language learners are. There were a few cost studies done in Texas. None of them gave a concrete recommendation. However, this is a synthesis or synopsis of over 70 studies that were examined. And these were the recommended adjusted weights for English language learners. So what this says is more funding is needed and most of them had recommended yellow weights over 0.5. So I will skip over this slide. So what are the conclusions and recommendations? And I'll end there Bradley if you're so kind. This study suggests that the Texas school funding system is inadequate both in terms of general and supplemental funding to support and sustain secondary English language learners meeting Texas's academic benchmarks. Very few secondary schools across the state are meeting Texas's academic benchmarks. Current supplemental ELL funding are insufficient to support high ELL academic outcomes. However, ELL supplemental funding alone, and this is what I would recommend to the senator, alone is necessary, but in isolation is insufficient to support high ELL academic outcomes. So it is important for ELLs to have a well-funded regular-based program. Supplemental is supplemental. It does not replace base funding. It is base funding is what all students should receive and many ELLs do not receive adequate base funding, which is significantly more than that 10% add-on. Recommendations. Texas schools should increase ELL access to rigorous coursework, such as advanced placement, dual credit courses, and international baccalaureate programs. To implement more research-based programs and practices tailored towards the different types of secondary English language learners. Texas should increase base funding to support a high-quality regular program for English language learners and all students. And Texas's bilingual weight developed in 1984 should be revisited to better reflect the cost to adequately educate English language learners in Texas public schools. It is recommended that Texas bilingual weight be increased from a 0.1, and I would double the senator's recommendation to a 0.5 based on the most current empirical research. Thank you. Let's give Dr. Jimenez Castagnana another hand. He did a lot of work in a very, very short period of time. He really did, and thank you for trying to honor the time constraints. Listen, there is going to be a rich synthesis of his report that will come along to you from the proceedings of today. So don't think that you won't have a chance to get all of this information. Rich and important, and important for our discussions. So thank you. Give yourselves a hand, by the way, for being able to hang in here. You've been sitting now since 8.30 this morning. So give yourselves a hand for that. I insist that you do. Because I'm going to allow us to go into our official break right now, and which will be 15 minutes, and then we'll be able to report back here on time and into the hands of Al Kaufman for our next round. So take a 15 minute break. Thank you so much for your attention, and we'll see you back in 15 minutes.