|
|
|
 |
|
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingState Legislators Address NCLB Implementation and State Budget DeficitsDuring the 2003 State Legislative sessions, two areas were addressed nationwide: (a) the State budget deficit; and (b) accountability and other NCLB provisions, which required changes in state laws in many states where conflicts existed. As Education Commission of the States (ECS) reported in State Education Leader (Summer/Fall 2003), the National Association of State Budget Officers has projected that total state budgets for FY 2004 will actually shrink for the first time since 1983, although the National Conference of State Legislature projects a 1.5 percent or higher increase in K-12 education spending, as does MCH (see below). In response to the transition year of implementation of NCLB, according to ECS, nine legislatures (Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah) enacted education bills which dealt with provisions in NCLB, particularly assessment assistance for low-performing schools, reporting of results, teacher quality, and other accountability-related provisions. In the area of teacher certification, according to ECS, over 100 laws were enacted or modified. Legislators also focused upon accountability at the secondary level, including:
A state budget survey by the State Education Technology Directors Association (SETDA) found that total state budgets for education technology between 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 decreased from approximately $13.8 million to $10.4 million per state. Additionally more than half of the 31 responding states in the survey have reduced technology staff within the SEA. Some states, such as Texas, actually abolished the state technology office by transferring most staff into the office responsible for textbook adoption. State technology directors claimed in a press release that staff reductions are hampering their reporting and technical assistance responsibilities included in NCLB. They did mention that over the same timeframe state officials reported some increases in Federal funding for Title IID, although nationwide the amount of such Federal funding actually declined over $100 million. The press release also notes, "Despite the state level budget cuts several states continue the status quo and are building new partnerships inside and outside their state department to leverage their resources and decrease the negative impact of state budget cuts. For example, states are deploying regionally-based professional development seeking business partners, securing interagency loans/grants, and working collaboratively with other departments to imbed technology professional development into overall professional development offerings." As part of its Budget Aware MCH K-12 State Funding Outlook, John Hood, President of MCH recently announced the results of its August-September survey of state budget officials. The survey concludes that for 2003-04 the K-12 state budgets for 46 reporting states show an average increase of 3.2 percent above actual state funds allocated to districts last year. As Hood points out, last year 28 states allocated less to K-12 than initially budgeted, and this could happen this school year in certain states if projected revenues are not met. Reductions are expected in seven states, no change in one state, and an increase from .6 percent in Wisconsin to 20.8 percent in Oregon projected for this year over last year. The projected 5.3 percent increase for K-12 in California is surprising, at over $2 billion.
Questions, ideas, or needof more information? Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org. |
For a state by state breakdown of projected budget estimates go to http://www.mailings.com. For a summary of state legislature actions go to http://www.ecs.org. |
|
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
|||
