Blogs

ESEA Reauthorization with More Funding Flexibility?

By Ron Skinner posted 07-08-2011 13:49

  
What if you could spend your federal funding on almost anything you want to, moving dollars from one pot to another depending on your unique needs?  A bill introduced yesterday by U.S. House education chairman John Kline (R-MN) claims to give districts just that kind of flexibility and the bill has been given the full support of the superintendent's association (AASA).

Yet many other education groups in Washington, and Democrats on the education committee, oppose the bill.  They see the bill as an attack on student's civil rights, that it will dismantle the federal role of providing support to the most underserved students, and further that it will harm our global competitiveness.  They also note that districts aren't currently using the flexibility they are given.

So what do you think?  ASBO will be part of a stakeholders group at the U.S. Department of Education on July 14th.  When I am sitting at the table, are we for this or against it?  Will this much flexibility allow you to focus the funds on the areas that need it, or will you face political pressure from your board and community to focus on the most influential groups in your community?  And will flexibility be traded for fewer federal dollars?  It's always easier to cut from a general pot then specifically from kids in poverty or with limited English ability.

Here are some resources you might find useful: Ed Week did a good write up on this, and a summary of the bill from the sponsors is here on the House site. Go here for AASA's letter of support, and take a look at the NEA's letter of opposition.  You can also find a report on flexibility and the federal role from House democrats on the education committee.

Log in and comment below, or post your own blog here on ConnectEd.  I will be following your comments and will bring them to the attention of the Department of Education next week.

2 comments
86 views

Permalink

https://network.asbointl.org/blogs/ron-skinner/2011/07/08/esea-reauthorization-with-more-funding-flexibility

Comments

David Janak
07-12-2011 10:41

The Center on Reinventing Public Education commented on the supposed current flexibility that exists through the EdFlex program. It does not exist. In the book "Smart Money" being able to make spending decisions at the level closest to the student is a reform that will require business managers to forego our need to track dollars to the object and curriculum level and allow a more flexible approach to the use of fiscal resources.
The proposed changes will require that districts make building principals accountable for the decisions that are made and additionally accountable for the student achievement progress their decisions result in.
The data from the status quo has proven that current additional funding does not result in better student performance. In a majority of districts the Federally assisted schools have a majority of the most inexperienced teachers. Funding to reduce class sizes has not resulted in the higher achievement results that were expected. Multiple program requirements have caused districts to create and fund duplicate programs simply to maintain a level of funding. None of this has helped any of the protected classes that are targeted for the funds.
Supporting the proposed flexibility comes with additional responsibility at the district level to use the funds in the best interests of the students. While the Federal rules may offer a safe harbor to fall back on, they have not resulted in improved quality of education for the vast majority of the nations childeren.
We should support the additional flexibility and propose guidance for business officials in how to work with this new flexibility.
Dave Janak
Director of Finance, Budget & Community Development
Rapid City Area Schools 51-4
Rapid City, South Dakota

Sandra Rosenboom
07-08-2011 17:27

I agree wholeheartedly that this much flexibility undermines the purposes of the programs. It will be too easy to use the funds to balance the budget and not to use them to serve the students most in need. Often these targeted funds serve children whose families don't have any political power in the local community. Advocating for these students is much easier when we can fall back on the federal regulations requiring that the money be spent for certain groups--disadvantages, immigrants, limited English students, after school programs, migrant, etc. All of these are populations within our district that would have been harder to target with a more general and flexible grant system.
My second concern is that this would essentially make the funds almost a block grant. It would be much easier to cut a little every year and gradually dismantle these targeted programs.
Sandy Rosenboom
Crete Public Schools
Crete, NE 68333