|
|
|
||
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingBush on Assessment and Accountability: Implications for VendorsMarch 20, 2001 - Three days after taking office, President Bush unveiled "Transforming the Federal Role in Education So That No Child Is Left Behind," a policy statement that should be of concern to vendors and publishers of educational software and technology. Throughout its 28-page summary, the Bush plan addresses assessment and accountability: "The federal Government currently does not do enough to reward success and sanction failure in our education system," it reads. All students in grades 3 through 8 would be tested annually in basic skills, using a test selected by the state. A sample of students in each state also would be evaluated annually in reading and math, with the National Assessment of Educational Progress, at grades 4 and 8. Disadvantaged students in schools that fail to make "adequate yearly progress" would first receive funding and technical assistance. After three years, they would come under "corrective action" to make progress. Disadvantaged students then would be allowed to transfer to another public school or other education provider of choice (during the campaign, this was said to include private school vouchers). Under the current accountability system in Title I, the Department of Education has to approve each state's proposed assessment system, and state participation in NAEP assessments is voluntary. Under Bush, the federal government would provide funding to states to develop their assessments, where necessary, and would cover the costs for all states' participation in NAEP. (Only 15 states currently meet the proposed Bush testing design in grades 3 through 8.) These two proposals could cost more than $1 billion over three years - an amount not shown in the FY 2002 proposed budget blueprints of March 1. As stated in the Bush plan, the administration of NAEP is designed to "confirm the results" and ensure that states do not select low-level assessment instruments or define small, slow improvements as "adequate yearly progress," as many now do for Title I students. But there's an unforeseen conflict, which is a major problem: Most state-developed assessments - and national-norm referenced tests selected as state assessments - do not correlate with NAEP assessment domains and coverage. (Only in North Carolina and Connecticut are there high correlations between the two assessments.) In fact, a January 19 press release from the Department of Education is entitled "National Assessment of Title I Shows Students Progress on State Assessments: Little Progress on NAEP." The report's authors conclude that "the seemingly conflicting findings appear to be perplexing." One obvious answer came up recently at the Association's CEO Forum, when a senior ETS analyst stated that NAEP tests are not designed to assess the skills of computer-using students; many Title I students use computers with supplemental programs that are aligned with state tests, not the NAEP. Another answer is that state accountability rewards and sanctions are not now based on NAEP scores. In a real sense, the Bush plan establishes two assessment/accountability systems, for which few education publishers can afford to design content. And there is not enough time during the school year to ensure that student performance increases on both. One scenario would call for the administration to decide which assessment is the "real" one, for accountability purposes. The policy could be to use state assessments that are aligned with state-developed standards, to ensure that high expectations are met; if so, it would be similar to the Clinton approach. On the other hand, if the Bush administration opts to base accountability on NAEP scores, it could be accused by ultra-conservative groups, such as the Eagle Forum, of "driving a national curriculum" through the forced used of NAEP. The implications for technology-based content providers are clear: Either develop for one of the two types of assessments, or develop hybrid supplemental content and skills materials - with embedded mastery items covering much content and many skills, on both norm-referenced tests and on the NAEP. E-Rate Delays are Good News for PublishersFollowing a March 6 article in AEP Online summarizing a recent General Accounting Office report ? which cited the finding that $1.3 billion of requested E-Rate discounts remained unspent as of August 2000 ? two additional points need to be made. First, most of the $1.3 billion was "contingency withholding" to pay for appeals in Year 1 and Year 2, late Year 2 district BEAR submissions, and "out of the window" Year 2 requests for which notifications were not finalized until now ? all of which totals about $500 to $600 million. The good news is most of the refunds for Year 2 "out of the window," "meritorious appeals," and extensions have been retroactive; hence, districts can use the BEAR process for requesting checks rather than credits. These refunds can be used to purchase supplemental products. Most of the $900 million from Year 2 will have been committed to districts by March 30. Second, an additional $1 billion in Year 3 refunds under the BEAR process also is becoming available throughout 2001. Total funding in the form of checks between November 2000 and October 2001 can be expected to reach approximately $1.5 billion; with these refunds, districts can purchase noneligible E-Rate products such as online content, CDROMs, and instructional materials. While the E-Rate problems identified by GAO were real for some districts, the eventual benefits for education publishers are significant indeed.
Question, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org. |
||
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers |
|||
