AEP Online
Featured Columns
Blaschke on Fed. Funding
A+ Advice for Parents
    Archives
Archives
    Education 
    Legislation
    Technology
    Market Trends
    Misc. Topics
About

Blaschke on Federal Funding

House Bill Closer to Bush On ESEA and Ed Tech than Senate's 

April 2001--During the last days of March, House Chairman John Boehner, R-Ohio, released HR 1 (the bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), which is much closer to the Bush "blueprint" with respect to education technology (see 3/20/01 issue) than the Better Education for Students and Teachers bill put forward earlier by the Senate. However, in a major departure, HR 1 would allow states to use "any other nationally recognized tests," in lieu of the National Assessment for Educational Progress, to confirm student results on state assessments. Ranking Democrat Dale Kildee of Michigan ? echoing some of the points in the 3/20 issue ? agrees that there is no correlation between student scores on state assessments, including norm-referenced tests, and the NAEP, except in two or three states. To follow are some differences between HR 1 and the Senate BEST bill:

?HR 1 would allow parents of students in schools classified as low-performing for three consecutive years to send their children to another "provider," with Title I funding "following the child" to pay for tutoring services. BEST does not provide for any similar choice, voucher, or funds to follow the child.

--Unlike BEST, HR 1 would establish a system of rewards and sanctions for both districts and states, which would be based on student achievement.

--HR 1 also would include provisions from the Straight-A proposal--that failed in the Senate last year--allowing states to enter into a "performance agreement" with the Department of Education in return for greater flexibility and holding the state more accountable. If student achievement does not meet benchmark increases determined by the states, then such flexibility is revoked, and the state must revert to standard, less flexible mandates. Ironically, while HR 1's underlying priority is to reduce the achievement gap between students at high-poverty schools and their economically more advantaged counterparts, a state could enter into a performance agreement, but exclude Title I from the "more stringent accountability requirements." That, in turn, could reduce the state's incentive to allocate more resources to high-poverty schools. Under HR 1, the state defines "adequate yearly progress," which would apply to disadvantaged and other students.

Regarding education technology, there are both similarities and differences between the House and Senate versions. Both bills would consolidate earmarked programs into grants that would be allocated to states on a poverty-weighted formula. And both would provide districts greater flexibility, but hold them accountable to demonstrate how effectively they have used technology to improve student academic performance. The E-Rate would not be one of the consolidated programs, and would for the next year remain substantially unchanged; serious changes are proposed for following years.

Differences between the two bills regarding technology are as follows:

• Under HR 1, 5 percent of the consolidated funding amount would be set aside for the Secretary, and 5 percent of the remaining amount would be set aside for state education agencies. The rest would be allocated to districts according to a poverty-weighted formula. BEST would distribute the entire amount to districts on a competitive basis.
   
• Under HR 1, 80 percent of funds after set-asides would be allocated to districts on a formula targeting high-need districts, while 20 percent would be distributed through competitive grants.
   
• HR 1 allows use of funds for "advanced technology which has been proven to be effective in increasing student academic achievement." BEST would place a greater emphasis on professional development, by requiring that at least 30 percent of any technology allocation be used for such purposes.

To varying degrees, both versions refer to use of Federal funds to purchase only "scientifically-based," "research-based," and "proven technologies" that have been effective in increasing student "academic" performance. Neither bill recognizes to any significant degree that technology can be effective in helping students develop 21st-century technology skills such as computer literacy. Perhaps more so than BEST, HR 1 would create opportunities for states and districts to reallocate funds previously earmarked for technology to other purposes, under various transferability clauses. Or at the state level, the legislature could decide to "reappropriate" federal technology funds, providing increases to districts while reducing the amounts previously state-earmarked for technology. And last, both versions, to varying degrees, call for some type of national clearinghouse on "effective technology practices" ? but neither seems to support that priority as strongly as the Bush blueprint.

The House Committee likely will vote out HR 1 in late April or early May, with floor debates in May. A projected full Senate debate should be lengthy: Sen. Joe Lieberman and "New Democrats" will attempt to provide amendments included in the "3 Rs" Lieberman bill proposed last year. More changes as a result of floor debate are expected in the Senate version than in the House version.

Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349.

© 2011 The Association of Educational Publishers
300 Martin Luther King Blvd., Ste. 200 • Wilmington, DE 19801
P: 302-295-8350 • F: 302-778-1110 • Email: mail@AEPweb.org
 
Satellite Offices:
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 300 • Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
C/O Knowledge Alliance • 1 St Matthews Court NW • Washington, DC 20036