Education
Multilingual students are a vibrant and enriching part of our school communities. In Utah, 59,147 students in the K-12 system are Multilingual Learners (ML), also known as English Language Learners or English Learners. They bring diverse backgrounds and perspectives that enhance the educational experience for all students.
This summer, Voices for Utah Children and the Center for Economic Opportunity and Belonging have been raising awareness of ML students and the richness their backgrounds bring. On June 18th, we co-organized a Lunch and Learn event, Promising Practices and Resources to Welcome Newcomers to Schools.
We welcomed Dr. Christelle Estrada, Ph.D (right photo), who presented data, promising practices, and resources for Multilingual Learners. Dr. Estada is the Education Specialist with the Title III, Refugee & Immigration Program at the Utah State Board of Education. Additionally, Wendy Cervantes (center photo) from the Center for Law and Social Policy joined virtually giving information regarding the federal context on K-12 multilingual and undocumented students, highlighting concerns about the potential resurgence of issues related to Plyler v. Doe in the coming year.
We know much has been debated about immigrant students, and questions have been raised about how resource allocation affects non-ML students. As an organization, we stand by ensuring all children have the opportunity to obtain an education in our state regardless of where they were born or their immigration status. Our state leaders now have a critical opportunity to provide additional support to help our school districts meet the diverse needs of these students.
History of Education for Immigrant Students
Under the 1982 Plyler v. Doe ruling, all foreign-born children, including undocumented ones, have the right to a public K-12 education. Schools are legally obligated to identify multilingual learners and provide necessary language assistance services. This ruling also ensures that parents are informed about enrollment into ML programs and that school policies are in a language they understand. Unfortunately, there are continued efforts to challenge or undermine this ruling, which would be detrimental to immigrant students and their families living in our state.
Impact and Importance of Multilingual Learners
Educating all children, including newcomers, has proven to be beneficial to the United States as a whole. Historically, multilingual learners are newcomers/immigrants. Research indicates that newcomer students positively impact native-born students, improving their educational outcomes.
The long-term benefits of educating Multilingual Learners are evident in the achievements of previous generations who have accessed public education and subsequently joined the workforce, such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. [2] A June 2024 report by The Center for American Progress highlights some of the significant benefits the DACA program has had in our country. The report reveals that nearly 23% of DACA recipients have pursued higher education, and approximately 343,000 served as essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Immigrants, including those undocumented, make substantial contributions to the U.S. economy, paying $524.7 billion in total taxes in 2021.
According to a report by The Century Foundation, the presence of immigrant students fosters diverse learning environments, which benefit all students by enhancing skills such as creative problem-solving and critical thinking. Denying education to any child, regardless of immigration status, could have long-term detrimental effects on society, emphasizing the importance of inclusive educational policies.
Why Are We Talking About ML Students Now?
In Utah, the ML student population has seen consistent growth. According to the Utah State Board of Education, the number of refugee students increased from 3,866 in the 2022-23 school year to 4,473 in the 2023-24 school year. Similarly, refugee students learning English rose from 3,157 to 3,555 during the same period. The immigrant student group saw an increase from 17,668 to 18,210, with those learning English growing from 13,491 to 14,233. Overall, the total number of students learning English slightly adjusted from 59,176 to 59,147 between the two school years. This data shows that ML students continue to be a small percentage of the overall student population.
Who Are Utah’s ML Students?
The ML population in Utah is diverse, including refugees, immigrants, US-born citizens, and other students learning English. These students come to the U.S. for various reasons and hold different immigration statuses. [1] The following definitions come from the Utah State Board of Education and play a role in ML funding opportunities.
- I-94 Arrival-Departure Record Form holders
- I-551 Permanent Resident Record holders
- Immigration Court Letter recipients, also identified as refugee or asylum seekers
ML students are typically aged between 3 and 21, born outside the U.S., and have not attended one or more schools in any state for more than three full academic years. These students are categorized based on their engagement with English Learner services at their school as:
- Y: Receiving English Learner services
- 0: Qualified for services, but family refused
- Fluent: Achieved English fluency and no longer need services
Funding for ML Students
Funding for multilingual (ML) students' education is multifaceted. Schools receive each student’s Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU) and Supplemental Federal Title III Funds. Additionally, some school districts have utilized alternative funding sources to address the needs of students beyond the classroom, particularly in response to significant increases in newcomer students. This funding is designated specifically for English learners and does not detract from the resources available to non-English learner students.
Addressing Misconceptions
During the most recent Education Interim Committee meeting, concerns were raised about resource allocation and its impact on non-ML students. However, based on available funding data, these concerns appear unfounded. Some elected officials claimed that ML students were diverting resources from non-ML students and that Utah schools were overwhelmed by the influx of ML students, leading to insufficient resources and funding. Some suggested that revoking children's right to a public education could resolve these issues. However, it is imperative to uphold access to a public K-12 education as a constitutional right (Plyler v. Doe). While we acknowledge that certain districts have been more affected than others, establishing collaborative groups to discuss and implement promising practices will offer school districts the opportunity to ensure they receive the necessary support.
It is essential for committee officials to engage in discussions with school district leaders to better understand the funding structure for EL programs and raise more awareness. Additionally, it's important to allocate time and resources to constructive conversations on how to ensure that every student has access to a quality education.
Long-term Recommendations for Supporting ML Students
Changes in demographics bring both opportunities and challenges. Utah has the potential to lead by supporting innovative solutions and promising practices led by districts like Canyons, Granite, and Wasatch. Key recommendations include:
- Strengthening learning cohorts and investing in promising models.
- Developing structural changes to expand teacher and school personnel knowledge.
- Investing in professional development for teachers, including curriculum planning, training, and ML endorsement funding
- Increasing classroom support with additional teacher aides.
- Facilitating regular meetings for district officials to share promising practices with those district officials.
Success Stories and Partnerships
Several success stories from schools in Utah were highlighted during the Education Interim Committee, displaying the positive impact of community and educational partnerships:
- Herriman High School: Partnered with Herriman City, Salt Lake Community College, and Deloitte Accounting to support ML students. These collaborations help students integrate, succeed, and feel proud to be part of the U.S. educational system.
- Granite School District: Implemented the Grant Tumaini Process, which supports newcomers and refugees with immediate school immersion, family support, and home visits with interpreters.
Call to Action
Utah's commitment to supporting ML students is critical in fostering an inclusive and enriching educational environment for all children in the state. By investing in these students, we invest in the future of our entire community. These solutions will require continued collaboration, trust, and determination to support all students in our schools, regardless of their birthplace. Upholding access to public K-12 education as a constitutional right is crucial.
When done right, we know Utah schools can be where all immigrant, refugee, and ML students feel supported in their educational journey. We encourage community members to stay engaged with Voices for Utah Children as the interim discussions progress in Utah.
We also invite you to listen in on the Education Interim Committee meetings and help hold them accountable for the educational rights of all of our children. At the end of the interim period, the committee will propose legislation that could either support or harm our ML students, making it crucial for all of us to remain engaged.
- Footnotes
- It is important to recognize that while refugees are immigrants, not all immigrants are refugees. The term Immigrant includes refugees, asylum seekers, international students, and more.
- Historically, many DACA recipients have been beneficiaries of the ML programs at their schools.
A Rough Legislative Session for Utah Kids (Again)
Our 2024 Legislative Agenda
Utah Children's Budget 2023
The care for the children in our state and communities can be measured by our public investment in our smallest humans. From the fiscal year 2008 to 2022, Voices for Utah Children divided all state programs concerning children into seven categories, without regard to their location within the structure of state government to quantify the level of public funding and identify trends. The seven categories are:
- K-12 Education
- Health
- Food & Nutrition
- Early Childhood Education
- Child Welfare
- Juvenile Justice
- Income Support
An appendix of our tables, sources, methodology and description of programs can be found here.
How Much We Spend
The interactive circle chart below compares how much we spend by category, program, and source of funding, just use the filter and click the category to zoom in.
-
K-12 Education makes up 92% of the state-funded portion of the Children’s Budget, while the federal-funded portion is more diversified across categories.
Spending Trends
We compare the budget to FY2008 because that was a peak year in the economic cycle before The Great Recession and all figures have been adjusted for inflation, so they are comparable across time.
- From FY2008 to FY2022, total public investment in children increased by 43%, growing much faster than Utah’s public-school enrollment (district & charter schools) by 26%, or the child population ages 0-17 by 13% from 2008-2021.
The federal share of the Children's Budget has fluctuated between 18-26% but had its biggest increase at the beginning of the Great Recession and the Covid-19 Pandemic. This is also when state funding for the Children's Budget has declined, for example real state & local K-12 education funding fell by $206 million since FY2020, the largest two-year decline since the Great Recession in 2008-2010. Several years after the Great Recession the federal share of the Children’s Budget decreased and the state share started to increase again, something that will hopefully happen again as pandemic relief funding rolls back.
Funding Sources: Federal vs. State
When the categories are disaggregated by source of funding, Food & Nutrition, Income Support, Health, and Early Childhood Education programs are mainly funded by federal sources, and Child Welfare, K-12 Education, and Juvenile Justice programs are funded mainly by state sources. And since Amendment G passed and allowed the income tax to be used to fund programs for children (in addition to K-12 and some Early Childhood Education & Nutrition Programs), the Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, and Health categories are funded primarily by the income tax. In FY2022, 98% of Juvenile Justice, 100% of Child Welfare, and 88% of Health categories of the state funded Children's Budget were funded by the income tax totaling to $475 M.
When examining the state-funded portion of the budget since FY2008 each category has a different story.
- Juvenile Justice programs declined the most in dollar amount, $32.9 M or 28% mainly due to a reduction in correctional facility and rural programs and it also had an increase in early intervention services which advocates consider to be a goal of juvenile justice reform.
- Child Welfare programs declined by 16% or $21.8 M, mainly from the Service Delivery program which funds caseworkers to deliver child welfare, youth, and domestic violence services.
- Income Support declined 49% or $2.1 M and appears to be more cyclical, rising and falling with the Great Recession. Interestingly, the TANF grant is a mix of state and federal funds, and only a small amount goes to Income Support or cash assistance.[i]
- Food & Nutrition increased by 56% or $19.7 M due to an increase in liquor & wine tax revenues which supports the school lunch program.
- Early Childhood Education had the largest percentage increase of 109% or $42.0 M mainly from the Upstart program but increasing in every program except Child Care Assistance.
- Health has increased by 80% or $139.3 M from the Medicaid and CHIP program but also had a 58% or $12.4 M decrease in Maternal & Child Health.
- The category that has increased the most in dollar amount is K-12 Education.
K-12 Education Funding
State and local sourced funding for K-12 education increased by $1.6 billion in constant 2022 dollars from FY2008 to FY2022, but per-pupil spending only increased from $10,212 to $10,537 per student. This means that even though more is being spent in total dollars, it barely covers the increase in students during the same time.
In 1948, 100% of the income tax was allocated to public education, an increase from 75% when it was originally imposed in 1931. It was expanded in 1996 to include higher education, in 2021 to include non-education services for children and people with a disability, and may be expanded again depending on a 2024 ballot measure placed by the Utah Legislature.
The income tax rate has been reduced in 1996, 2006, 2008, 2018, 2022, and 2023. The graphs below illustrate a timeline of these changes and Utah’s total elementary and secondary public schools (district & charter) funding effort (including capital) as a percentage of personal income and rank compared to other states.
Unfortunately, the result is a downward trajectory and likely explains our second to last place in per-pupil funding in the country.[ii]
Utah's Education Funding Effort as a Percent of Personal Income
According to the fiscal notes, the last two bills that reduced the Income Tax rate in 2022 and 2023 estimated a loss of $1.3 billion in the Income Tax Fund from FY2022-2025 with more ongoing.[iii]
State & Local Funded Portion of K-12 Education
Another result of these changes has been shifts in the funding source for K-12 education. From the fiscal year 2008 to 2022, the federal-funded portion increased by 74% and the state-funded portion declined by 3%.
Meanwhile, Local sources have increased by 12%, possibly to meet the needs of their communities while state-funded sources decline and putting greater pressure on sources like the property tax which is more regressive than the income tax because it takes a greater toll on low-and middle-income families.
Rank of Utah's Education Funding Effort Compared to Other States
We Need to Prioritize Children in the Budget
While Utah doesn’t have the most kids than any other state, we do have the highest share of kids in our population. And we as a community are entrusted to make sure they are cared for, safe, and have the tools they need to achieve their aspirations. As the Utah Legislature drafts, holds hearings on, debates, and passes the Utah state budget we hope they prioritize our most vulnerable and precious group, Utah’s children.
[i] https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/tanf_spending_ut.pdf
[ii] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/school-finances.html
[iii] https://le.utah.gov/~2022/bills/static/SB0059.html, https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0054.html These fiscal notes show the loss from the income tax fund but they are not disaggregated by changes from the income tax rate or tax credit portion of the bills.
