|
|
|
 |
|
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingTitle I Final Regulations by December, Other Guidance Shortly, Says USEDActing National Title I Director Dr. Jackie Jackson announced in September that final regulations on the Title likely would be published late this month or in December. The regulations, she told attendees of the second annual National Association of Federal Education Program Administrators (NAFEPA) workshop, would take into account hundreds of comments on the proposed regulations of August 6. In addition, “non-regulatory guidance” is expected in the next 30 days, on teacher quality, choice, non-public schools, and teacher aides. If the final regulations are published on schedule, with approximately 80 percent of districts’ Title I funds allocated to State Education Agencies in October, both events should set in motion a major Title I purchasing cycle--which has been held up because of various uncertainties, as we lacked guidance from the U.S. Education Department. The final regulations will include specific guidance on adequate yearly progress (AYP), which was the focus of most comments received from various groups. Guidance will be provided shortly on “schoolwide programs.” As she noted, some principals have to be “re-energized”-- those who commented that they would rather become a “targeted assistance school” than a “schoolwide program,” so they do not have to worry about ensuring that all new teachers and aides meet the new No Child Left Behind qualifications. She indicated that the guidance would further encourage creation of more schoolwide programs, “as well-implemented schoolwide programs have proven time and time again to be more effective than targeted assistance schools, in boosting student achievement.” Those states (more than 30) whose assessment and accountability systems have not been approved--or have been approved “conditionally”--must submit their state assessment and accountability plans by January 2003. The plans will then be reviewed by state education “peers” for USED final approval, or the states will be directed to refine further. Jackson noted that two years from now, USED will check states' yearly progress toward the overall goal--that within 12 years, all students achieve the “proficient” level--and also will check English language learners' progress as assessed annually by districts. During an earlier session, a leading Title I coordinator from a large California district noted that there are 64 native languages represented in that district’s enrollment--and that it would be impossible to ensure that such district tests are available in all 64 languages within the time frame. In response to a related question about another statute that most districts cannot meet, Jackson noted that if a district has a “reasonable plan and timeline” and indicates a strong movement toward compliance, her office likely would continue supporting the effort, while monitoring progress. She reminded the audience that while districts were certainly being held accountable, her office is being held accountable to Congress. She advised district Title I officials to have local research groups or universities document progress in those schools where student achievement scores have improved significantly. Moreover, she indicated that Title I funds can be used for such purposes--including the creation of “model schools,” which also can receive financial incentives. In emphasizing the need for expanded professional development (schools targeted for the first time must receive 15 percent of their school’s Title I allocation from the district's Title I “reserve”; all other Title I schools, five percent), Jackson indicated that the new law clearly deals with “content.” However, this does not prevent districts from addressing questions of “pedagogy” and “teaching skills” when considering whether newly hired teachers are “highly-qualified.” She also suggested that Title I directors now view parents as “customers” or “consumers”; the new law not only provides, in certain situations, choice options for parents, but also requires significant increases in school and district communications with parents before placing certain children (e.g., limited-English proficient) in specific programs. Jackson indicated that she could not respond to questions about limiting the number of schools or service providers under choice and supplemental services, because the final regulations were still being formalized. She reminded Title I directors that, before they ask certain questions, they should think about whether or not they really want a firm answer--similar to last April's advice from her predecessor, Dr. Joe Johnson. In another session, during a presentation by Jay Urwitz of the law firm Hale and Dorr, a number of questions were raised for which the consensus was “there are no answers”--and some of the provisions questioned could have serious unintended effects. For example, a Title I director from a large Southern city asked the former aide to Senator Kennedy, “In which subgroup does one report on a student with limited-English proficiency and disabilities, who is Hispanic?” The initial response was to report that student in only one category. A related follow-up question addressed the difficulty of closing the reading gap between students with disabilities and other students. Students placed in special education exit from the program when their reading and other scores improve significantly--and lower achieving students then replace them. Urwitz indicated that the drafters of the legislation had not thought about the question. One Massachusetts Title I director indicated that by taking the improved achievers out of the special education reporting category, the district would make a continuing gap more likely. On the other hand, if a student remained in special education for the purpose of Title I reporting, the student would be over-stigmatized--which is one of the reasons the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act required students be placed in the least restrictive environment. Having to keep two “sets of books” would appear to be “ridiculous.” In his presentation, Urwitz indicated that, for the first time, Title I explicitly states that “online electronically delivered learning content” is an allowable use, and that district plans should “reflect on their consideration for using online technology in both instruction and assessment.” In response to a question as to whether or not a district could use “tutoring” and/or “family literacy” programs under Reading First (these are explicitly allowed in the statute), the questioner was told that these activities are not allowable if they are not recommended in the USED Reading First guidance or in states’ applications. Urwitz conceded that there probably is little recourse for the district, and that allowable activities could be limited by the state. NAFEPA will be instrumental over time, exerting its influence to foster rational and reasonable changes regarding No Child Left Behind provisions. The next annual legislative conference will be held in Washington, D.C., on April 6-10, 2003, and will be attended by more than 300 Title I decision makers, who control more than half of the $12 billion Title I budget. Unlike other, much larger, Title I conferences, NAFEPA allows high-level executives from educational publishing and other industries to network directly with key decision makers; the role of sponsors and exhibitors at this conference will be much more pronounced than in recent NAFEPA conferences.
Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349. |
The new person handling sponsorship and exhibits is Carol Brush, Director, Federal and State Programs, San Juan Unified District (916-971-7202). For more information go to www.nafepa.org. |
|
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers |
|||
