|
|
|
 |
|
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingNew State Plan Regulations Likely to be Another Blow Against TechnologyOn May 22, the U.S. Department of Education published final regulations states must follow in submitting their consolidated plans for implementation of all ESEA titles, except Reading First. When the draft regulations became available earlier this year, many state technology directors were concerned that it would be the Title I office, not the technology office, that would take the lead role in developing the plan. The final regulations create an even greater concern. Under the goal that all students reach standards of proficiency or better by 2012, one of the four initial indicators -- “the percentage of students that meet or exceed state standards for student literacy in technology” -- has been removed. With this indicator deleted, states do not have to report annually on progress in this area -- even though provisions of the new ESEA discuss reporting on technology progress explicitly. Also removed were indicators of the percentages of teachers qualified to use technology in the classroom and of students with access to network computers. According to Small Axe Communications' Title I Reports, “In each case USED agreed with criticism that these indicators are not related directly enough to achievement and that it will be difficult to collect reliable and useful data.” In light of state budget deficits, an even greater slice of formula technology funds under Title II D (50 percent are transferable) will likely be moved into areas such as Title I and Title V. As noted in previous columns, transfers into Title I schoolwide programs require no separate accounting; hence, teachers paid last year by local funds could now be designated as Title I teachers and be paid out of Title I funds. Under Title V, which has been a block grant since it was created in 1982, such funds can be used to purchase just about any product or service that relates to innovation and school reform. In addition, the final regulations include a new requirement: States must specify how they'll remove fiscal and accounting barriers in order to allow schoolwide programs full flexibility in commingling federal and other funds -- without having to report separately how such funds are spent. To many states and districts, this is an open invitation to transfer up to 50 percent of all ESEA titles except Title I into Title I schoolwide programs, allowing them to violate the 30-year-old traditional requirement that federal funds be used to “supplement, not supplant” state and local funds. The good news is that more federal funds will be allocated to existing and new Title I schoolwide programs; these can be used to purchase appropriate technology-based products and services. Several TURNKEY surveys over the last five years have found that state education agencies are one of the major barriers to districts that want to commingle Title I with other federal funds, including those from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (This has been allowed under the law since 1997.) SEAs have required local education agencies to maintain program-by-program records of expenditures made by or on behalf of schoolwide programs, including funds for services to specific groups of students. Reflecting the findings from two GAO reports in the late 1990s, the final regulations state, “These procedures have acted as the very barriers that have prevented schools from exercising the flexibility that they were intended to have and, we believe, have thereby inhibited the ability of school administrators and teachers in these schools to use Title I, Part A schoolwide authority to increase achievement of all students in the school.” There were approximately 18,000 schoolwide programs in Title I during the last school year. Next school year, that number could be well more than 30,000--as the threshold level to qualify will drop from 50 percent to 40 percent poverty enrollment --with a total Title I increase of more than $2 billion. Even more than in the past, Title I schoolwide programs should be priority one targets for firms whose products are designed to teach basic skills, provide remediation, and provide online assessment and specific intervention instructional strategies. The final regulations also will help generate a higher demand for limited-English-proficient (LEP) students' language skills programs and services and for effective ways to assess these students' progress. The law is very clear that LEP students must be provided English language acquisition skill development and that such progress must be reported annually. The final regulations also require states to report annually the percentage of LEP students who are at or above proficient levels in reading and math on state assessments. Consolidated plans states submit in 2003 must indicate they'll provide assessments written in languages other than English, and that they have implemented assessments of English language proficiency in the 2002-2003 school year, as well as a timeline for establishing annual achievement objectives in state reading and math content standards. English language acquisition skills -- including speaking, listening, reading, writing, and comprehension -- must be addressed in any instrument developed or selected by the state. Because the final regulations were not published until May 22, with state applications due 20 days later, many states did not have enough time to make the necessary changes; some will have to revise portions of their plan submitted previously, under the draft regulations.
Question, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org. |
The final regulations on consolidated plans were published in the Federal Register May 22, 2002. |
|
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
|||
