|
|
|
 |
Archives |
Q&A Summary - June Capitol Hill EventOn June 7, AEP and NSSEA hosted a Capitol Hill Event, held in conjunction with the annual Educational Publishing Summit. The breakfast meeting, which took place in the Rayburn House Office Building, featured presentations from Amanda Farris and Brad Thomas, professional staff members from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Roberto Rodriquez, Senior Education Advisor from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. A question-and-answer session followed their presentations. Topics included the future of SBR in the reauthorization of NCLB and movement of legislation such as the Head Start Bill. The following is a summary of the questions and answers. Q. What content should be subject to the Scientifically Based Research (SBR) requirements? A. Some of this depends on the funding stream used - federal or state dollars. There is a higher standard for Federal funds used, and it is expected that the standard be applied rigorously at the curriculum level. There are certain limits, but products need research evidence and data that back up products and methods. We understand it is burdensome and costly and there is room for compromise.
Q. SBR as defined by DOE is not flexible - it means double blind clinical trials. What about other types of research being appropriate? A. Where in the guidance do you see this? Where has Mr. Whitehurst said these things; where is confusion between statute and implementation? It is important to demonstrate a research base for the approaches and the materials, especially outside of core content.
Q. Some of us are hearing that large amounts of appropriated federal funds are not spent because LEAs don’t know what to do. Is this true? A. This is not generally true, but states do give back Federal funds, and we are concerned about why they are giving the money back. When feds provide funds we do want to know what is happening to these funds, and if they aren’t being spent, we want to know why. Q. Is Rep Ehler introducing a bill regarding science in AYP in NCLB? A. Legislation related to NCLB is being introduced frequently now. Ehlers proposes using science assessments in AYP. Bills to amend or change NCLB have been introduced since it was passed; this is a common practice. Q. Can you give us an update on where the Head Start bill is? A. Reauthorization began in 2003. There is a difference with how we handle discretionary and mandatory program. Head Start is a discretionary program but continues upon expiration with a continuation provision. We have made a lot of progress developing legislation. The House and Senate originally introduced different bills, but there has been movement toward a core set of principles, and the two bills are more similar now and could be conferenced productively. We are waiting to take our cue from Enzi on when it is ready. The Senate will have to vote on their version first. The House bill passed last year. Q. I heard there is money for RTI? A. [RTI is an intervention used to diagnose students with specific learning disabilities.] The primary model was the discrepancy model; the new model stresses specific interventions that can be done before a diagnosis to help address problems beforehand. This is a fairly contentious issue in terms of what RTI models will be implemented. This is not directly linked to the 15% of funds but could be used to fund RTIs. For more information, NASDE just posted a comprehensive paper on the issues Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349. |
For a summary of the Capitol Hill presentations, click here. |
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers |
||
