|
|
|
 |
|
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingE.D. Suggests “Reasonableness” in Implementing Title IDuring the annual conference of the National Association of Federal Education Program Administrators, held recently in Washington, DC, many attendees raised questions and uncertainties regarding implementation of some of the major new ESEA and Title I provisions. But U.S. Education Department officials and key Capitol Hill staff involved in drafting the new legislation suggested (both officially and off the record) that for the most part, some “reasonable” definitions and compliance standards would prevail. The stakes are considerable: According to Education Week (April 22), some states, such as Vermont, are seriously considering rejecting Title I funding. It's also possible that if a state chose to file suit, the Supreme Court might find portions of the new law, particularly those that “federalize” education, unconstitutional. Dr. Joseph Johnson -- the key Education Department official present at the conference and no stranger to the NAFEPA group -- stated that the 250 Title I directors in attendance should do what they think is right for improving student academic achievement. “Don’t ask questions,” he advised, emphasizing that the “intent of the law” is more important than what is on paper. He stressed that state education agencies need to implement provisions (not just ASAP, but “last week”) such as identifying supplemental services and providers with “a track record.” In September, schools that have been targeted for improvement for three consecutive years will have to meet the new supplemental services and parent option provisions. Asked about that timing, Johnson said that there was no choice left to the Department: These provisions, which already apply to more than 6,000 schools -- which we and Mailings Clearinghouse have identified -- must be implemented in September. He urged Title I directors to begin the parent notification process about choices available to them -- having their child sent to another public school or served by a quasi-affiliated district or separate service provider that has been recognized on the state’s “list” of “supplemental services.” He also noted that districts should lobby state offices -- and even the legislature, if necessary -- to ensure that data on individual students, such as an “itemized test-score analysis” for diagnosis and prescription, be provided to districts, teachers and principals in a timely manner. States, he added, should “demand test firms provide quick turnaround on scoring.” States also need to define “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) within the parameters of the new law and come up with a “trajectory” for measuring progress over the next 12 years, toward the eventual goal of proficiency among all student subgroups. He reiterated that although “scientifically-based research,” the new basis for choosing instructional approaches, was defined by Congress, early reading instruction is the only area where such research currently exists. In other areas he urged Title I directors to “ask harder, harder questions” and to require groups that promote products to “show you the data.” While he mentioned that some of the concerns over accountability and assessment had been addressed in negotiated rule-making, he noted that in the near future the Department will not be using negotiated rule-making process in developing “guidance letters” related to AYP, schoolwide programs, the “paraproblem” (noted below), “highly qualified teachers,” and private school issues. Guidance letters will be posted on the US Department of Education Web site; once they receive comments, draft rules will be published in the Federal Register. After additional comments are received, final regulations will be published, most likely in August. In a separate conversation, Johnson indicated that a guidance letter on the “paraproblem” would be issued shortly. Regarding the issue of which aides will be required to meet the new requirement (i.e., having completed a two-year college degree and/or passed a rigorous state or local assessment), he felt that this applies only to the newly-hired aides who will be involved in instruction under direct supervision of a teacher. (Some Education Department officials, however, felt all aides employed by the districts and paid through federal, state, or local funds would have to meet the new requirements.) On another important issue, he indicated that the guidance letter also would state that in Targeted Assistance Title I schools, only those aides who provide instruction and are paid for under Title I will have to meet the new requirements. However, in Title I schoolwide programs (which will likely expand from about 20,000 today to almost 30,000, as a result of the 40 percent cutoff replacing the 50 percent cutoff for eligibility), all aides paid for out of federal funds would have to meet the new aide qualifications requirements. Districts will have to allocate much of the large Title I increases next year to hiring bonuses, incentives, etc., to meet these new mandates. A number of the Title I directors indicated that they would be using Title I funds to create, as their supplemental service, after-school or related programs that are research-based and offer high potential for improving student academic performance. They added they would attempt to get their programs included in the official state list, which would help to minimize the potential Title I dollars “following the child” under parent choice to private tutor groups. After hearing a description of the formula for determining how much money could flow out of the district, even more Title I directors began to seriously consider such options. Under the new formula, the amount of funding is based upon the school’s total Title I budget divided by the number of Title I-eligible students. For example, say a schoolwide program has 300 students, and its Title I allocation per student is $500. If half of the students are classified as eligible for Title I (and the remainder noneligible), the amount that would flow outside the district to follow the child from a low-income family would be $1000. During the conference, the NAFEPA legislative position dated April 2002 was provided to the conference attendees to be used for lobbying their senators and representatives. Some of the key positions include:
|
National Association of Federal Education Program Administrators |
|
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
|||
