|
|
|
AEP Online |
SPELLINGS LIKELY TO ADVOCATE SES OVER PARENTAL CHOICE?Under Secretary Spellings, USED May Encourage Supplemental Educational Services as First Alternative for Students in Identified SchoolsWhile the Congressional Education Committee staff of most of the Republican and some of the Democratic leadership say their bosses are adamantly opposed to any legislative changes in No Child Left Behind this year, it is likely that Secretary Spellings, will use the regulatory route to allow, if not encourage, supplemental education services to be provided as an option to parents prior to requiring districts to transfer students from schools identified for the first time to other schools. This conclusion is based upon our analysis of what NCLB advocates and influencers are saying as well as publications and recent testimony by Secretary Spellings before the Senate on January 6. Moreover President Bush, in his January 12 speech at JEB Stuart High School (Fairfax County, Virginia Public Schools), also strongly hinted at such flexibility. During her nomination question-and-answer hearing before the Senate HELP subcommittee, Spellings stated, "We do need to work on the capacity issues. Now that we're several years into this (law), supplemental service options may be more viable for some of those parents and families as well." Chester Finn, who heads the NCLB-advocate Thomas Fordham Foundation and Frederick Hess, education policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, both made a similar recommendations in a pre-election issue of Public Interest, Fall 2004, and also summarized in the September issue of Phi Delta Kappan. Both Finn and Hess argue as one of the ten recommended changes in NCLB to improve its effectiveness and quality, "It would make sense to reverse the order in which supplemental services and public school choice are triggered. As it turns out, districts are more comfortable with the tutoring provision than with public school choice. Moreover, it makes sense to try to help children improve their performance within a school before exiting that school….a school student would become eligible for supplemental services if it misses AYP two years in a row and an exit ticket if it misses for the third consecutive year." The Finn and Hess article was highlighted in the pro-voucher and pro-choice School Reform News (December 2005), which is an influential publication among the ultra-conservative education reform community. When Rick Hess was asked whether the SES parent choice recommendation, as well as others, would likely be adopted, he acknowledged that the recommendation has been seriously discussed but concluded with a "who knows" type response. It is commonly known that such a recommendation is very popular at the district and state level; in fact, the majority of states requested such a change -- officially or unofficially -- in their proposed amendments to their accountability and assessment plan submitted to USED last Fall. A recent report by the CCSSO entitled "Revisiting Statewide Education Accountability under NCLB" listed a number of states' requests made by many states that were consistently not approved by USED, including, "Switching the order of choice and supplemental education services --- school choice must be offered in the first year of identification. Further, school choice cannot be limited to non-proficient students." These decisions appear to be official, as USED policy prior to last Fall(this statement seems contradictory as it stands--could you clarify what you mean?). In point of fact, some states have come up with policies that offer a number of parent options when a school is identified for improvement for the first time, including supplemental education services. Florida has five options and districts will be required to offer at least two to parents, one of which could be supplemental education services and the other being one that has nothing to do with student transfers. And last, if the President can be taken at his word, then one can infer additional signals of what is to come. During the President's January 12 speech regarding high school reform, he stated, "Accountability systems don't work unless there are consequences. And so in the No Child Left Behind Act, if a school fails to make progress, parents have options. They can send their child to free after-school tutoring, or they can send their child to a different public school." If districts not identified for improvement were allowed to offer SES before parent choice transportation options for eligible students in schools identified for improvement for the first time, providing SES internally by the district could reduce SES costs, minimize disruption and administrative headaches, and likely ensure greater alignment between the SES program and district and state curriculum objectives. On the other hand, districts identified for improvement under existing USED policy (e.g., the Chicago Public School standoff) are likely to see funds leave the districts to third-party providers with possibly more disruption and less curriculum alignment between SES and district programs. Obvious beneficiaries of such a policy could be independent SES providers and/or other vendors who partner with them, or SES providers that are affiliated with, but not part of, districts identified for improvement. One such alternative will be teacher groups, including AFT and NEA affiliates. Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org.
|
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
|
