|
|
|
 |
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingNew GAO Report on Title II A Finds Districts Focusing on Professional DevelopmentA new GAO report to Congress on the implementation of Title II, A, Teacher Quality provisions has found that all eleven districts in its recent survey reported spending Title II, A funds on professional development and about half of the districts had reduced their II, A funding for class size reduction, with some of those funds reallocated for professional development. Moreover, the report also found that, in all of the districts, Title II, A funding for professional development represented a relatively small portion of total funds expended on professional development activities when compared particularly with Title I (as the result of new NCLB "earmark" provisions). In an earlier report, GAO found that, in 2002-03, approximately one-third of the districts nationwide used Title II, A funds for professional development, while two-thirds used such funds for recruitment, signing bonuses, incentives for highly qualified teachers to transfer to high-poverty schools and related activities. In addition, the new report reiterates the NCLB requirement that schools and districts which are not making adequate progress to ensure that all teachers meet the highly qualified teacher standard and, if a district fails to meet its AYP student objectives for three consecutive years, the state must enter into an agreement with the district to develop and implement professional development strategies. In referring to other major funding sources for professional development, the report notes that any school receiving Title I funds which has yet to meet its teachers’ annual objectives, must earmark five percent of its Title I allocation for professional development and, if the school fails to meet adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years, it must spend an additional ten percent on professional development for teachers. While the eleven surveyed districts used Title II, A funds to support professional development, particularly in the area of core academic instruction, the report states, "However, district officials told us that they have begun shifting emphasis from class size reduction to initiatives focusing on improving teacher qualifications." GAO also found that most of the districts targeted Title II, A funds on professional development designed to help teachers improve student achievement. Among the eleven districts, a variety of directly-related professional development activities were funded using Title II, A funds, including:
The recent GAO report notes that the NCLB definition of professional development emphasizes activities that increase student academic knowledge which is sustained and intensive, rather than short-term, and increases teachers’ understanding of effective instructional strategies that are based upon principles of scientifically-based research. On the latter point, the report notes that officials in most of the districts felt that NCLB’s emphasis on using strategies supported by research had led to improvement in the quality of professional development: "They had become much more selective when approving professional development providers, looking for those programs that focused on intensive research-based instructional strategies...The district approved only those providers whose programs could be substantiated by research-based evidence of effectiveness. They also indicated that they had moved away from one-time workshops and begun to emphasize ongoing professional development that provided teachers with opportunities to reinforce and apply concepts learned." Interestingly, GAO found that, while all districts reported using some Title II, A funds for professional development, in six of the districts, Title II, A funds were transferred into Title V, one of the earliest block grant Federal programs, because "it afforded them the most flexibility in spending the funds." The report notes that its own earlier report on use of Title II, A funds in 2002-03, as well as a similar report by USED during the same timeframe, reported close to 60 percent of Title II, A funds that year were spent on class size reduction. The new GAO report implies that funds for this activity have been reallocated in some cases for additional professional development, or perhaps have been transferred into Title V or other titles under the “50 percent transferability provision,” included under NCLB for the first time. The GAO report also notes that previous studies have found, as this one also did, that most professional development activities in districts are funded by other Federal programs such as Title I: "...but in high-poverty districts Title II funds constituted a larger share of total funds spent on these activities than in low-poverty districts." These high-poverty districts are also most likely to have schools identified for improvement, which requires additional Title I funds being earmarked for professional development. This GAO report certainly suggests that Federal expenditures under Title II, A and Title I for professional development will likely increase. It also points to flexible allowable uses of such funds, ranging from hiring coaches to training teachers in using assessment data to inform instruction. One of the areas which was not addressed in the GAO report is the flexibility which Title I officials have in deciding how to reallocate the five and ten percent “earmarks” for professional development. In October 2004, USED issued Non-Regulatory Guidance in a policy letter, indicating that a district could allocate its Title I professional development earmarks to meet the district’s “greatest need,” which may not include providing professional development for teachers in schools identified for improvement -- which generated the “earmarks.” This suggests that there is more flexibility for selecting and funding professional development under Title I than under Title II. Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org.
|
Click here to download a PDF of the report from the GAO website. |
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
||
