government that works for schools and children

8/2/2019 Government that Works for Schools and Children

1/28

Government that Works forSchools and Children

Dening an Eective State Role in Title I Education Reorm

Brenda J. Turnbull and Leslie M. Anderson Policy Studies Associates

March 2012

www.americanprogress.org www.aei.o

American Enterprise Institutefor Public Policy Research

Tightening Up Title I


2/28


3/28

1 Introduction and summary

4 The states Title I administrative responsibilities

7 State capacity to implement Title I

12 State efforts to assist low-performing districts and scho

under Title I: A special problem

15 Options

20 Endnotes

23 About the authors

Contents


4/28


5/28

Introduction and summary | www.americanprogress.

Introduction and summary

Sae governmens coninue o sruggle o carry ou heir obligaions under ederal

law o ensure ha sudens in high-povery elemenary and secondary schools

receive a good educaion. Te iniial push in he 1960s o oblige sae deparmens

o educaion o direc ederal educaion unding o hese woeully negleced

schools caugh he sae educaion agencies unprepared. In he ensuing decades,

he problem was exacerbaed as he ederal governmen racheed up he sae

agencies responsibiliies or making he program work eecively o boos su-

den skills. Now, wih sae budges under considerable srain, he ime has comeor he ederal governmen o ake a hard look a he capaciies o sae educaion

agencies o ulll hese progressive educaion mandaes, and consider aking new

seps o ensure heir work is done well.

Sae educaion agencies oday play a pivoal role in carrying ou ile I o he

Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac o 1965, which aims o improve he

educaion and lie chances o sudens in he highes-povery schools o nearly

every school disric in he naion. Enacmen o ile I o ESEA massively

expanded he ederal presence in educaion, and is amendmens have spelled

ou increasingly clear expecaions or he resuls expeced rom he program. A

he ime he U.S. Congress rs enaced ESEA, sae deparmens o educaion

were by and large unequipped o comply wih he new law, 1 bu over ime hese

sae agencies learned and adaped (i unevenly) o he new ederal unding rules.

Bu as Congress enaced new ses o ESEA amendmens, he saes coninued o

sruggle o monior and suppor local school disrics and schools in educaing

sudens in schools eligible or ile I unding. ile I schools in which sudens

coninue o all shor o meeing achievemen sandards remain a severe naional

problem ha he saes are charged wih xing.

wo ses o amendmens o ESEA proved o be paricularly dicul or sae

educaion agencies o implemen eecively and ecienly. Te rs was he

reauhorizaion o ile I in he Improving Americas Schools Ac o 1994, which

asked saes o creae accounabiliy rameworks or gains in suden achievemen


6/28

2 Center or American Progress | Government that Works or Schools and Children

and he saewide sysems o suppor ha would assis sruggling school disrics

and schools. And he second was he No Child Le Behind Ac o 2002, which

brough new inensiy o hese exising ile I requiremens as well as he new

ones i added. Te 2002 amendmens inroduced higher sakes and higher visibil-

iy o he measuremen o suden perormance and he idenicaion o schools

in need o improvemen.

For years, sae direcors o ile I programs have collecively bemoaned he lack

o ime, sang, and unding o mee he expecaions o ile I. Each round o

rising ederal expecaions exposed he growing gap beween wha he ederal law

expeced in program adminisraion and wha he saes could do.2 And ha gap

is now gaping because o sae layos a heir deparmens o educaion. Never

lavishly unded in he rs place, sae educaion agencies since 2007 have los a

leas 10 percen o heir operaing budges in a majoriy o saes, according o a

recen survey. Even he American ecovery and einvesmen Ac o 2009, which

direced considerable ederal unds o he sae educaion agencies, made up orhis decline in sae unding in only wo o he saes ha responded o he survey.3

Now, ha ederal simulus money is no longer available.

Bu wih crisis comes he opporuniy o ace a problem squarely and ry new

approaches. Te problems a many sae educaion agencies are srucural and

longsanding, which means ha simply adding more money so hey can handle

heir curren ile I responsibiliies is probably no he bes soluion, and cerainly

no he only soluion. An observaion made nearly 20 years ago abou he capaci-

ies o deparmens o educaion by wo close observers o sae deparmens o

educaion (one a ormer chie sae school ocer) is equally ap oday:

many sae agencies never have developed properly and ully as leadership

organizaions. he grea unspoken irony and paradox o inadequaely sup-

pored sae educaion agencies has coninued ino he 90s. Tus, he undamen-

al weakness o many o hese agencies has persised despie he oupouring o

rheoric abou he need or dynamic sae leadership[W]e mus become much

more atenive o he issue o sae capaciy o lead and implemen.4

Indeed, here remains a deep mismach beween hopes or sae agency leadershipon ile I or elemenary and secondary sudens in heir saes and wha many

SEAs can in ac do.5 Te problem calls or new soluions ha suppor he more

eecive developmen and use o sae capaciies o implemen ile I.


7/28


8/28


The states Title I administrative

responsibilities

Te passage o he Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac o 1965 and suc-

cessive amendmens o he law placed increasing responsibiliy on he saes no

only o direc unds o high-povery schools bu also o creae sysems o aca-

demic sandards, esing, and accounabiliy, and hen o remedy he problems

o he schools and school disrics ha ail o raise suden perormance. In ac,

he mos resen reauhorizaion in 2002 charges he saes wih 588 compliance

requiremens.6 Tese requiremens broadly range over he ollowing mandaes:

Develop sandards and assessmens in reading, mah, and science, wih

atenion o assessing sudens wih disabiliies and hose who are learning

English as a second language Creae and implemen an accounabiliy sysem o assess school and disric

progress in raising suden achievemen Develop an inormaion sysem ha disaggregaes suden assessmen daa and

can be used or deermining adequae yearly progress Communicae wih parens and he public abou disric and school perormance Ensure ha eachers and classroom assisans are highly qualied Bring all schools and suden subgroups o a procien level o perormance on

challenging sae assessmensApply sancions o persisenly low-perorming disrics and schoolsAdminiser supplemenal educaional services, such as he uoring services

oered o sudens in low-perorming schools, as well as he school-choice

provisions riggered by coninuing low perormance Help disrics and schools improve hrough a saewide sysem o suppor and

school suppor eams Monior compliance wih ile I

Te saes have largely complied wih he procedural aspecs o he 1994 and 2002

reauhorizaions o ESEA. Te saes creaed curriculum sandards, assessmens,

and accounabiliy sysems.7 By he end o he 200607 school year, mos sae

suden daa sysems had unique suden ideniers ha enabled sae educaion


9/28

The states Title I administrative responsibilities | www.americanprogress.

adminisraors o assess he growh in suden perormance over ime. Mos saes

could produce repor cards ha disaggregaed suden perormance by subgroup,

and gauge disric atainmen o adequae yearly progress.8 And by 2006 mos

saes (75 percen) were able o repor on he number o classes augh by non-

highly qualied eachers.9

Bu meeing basic procedural requiremens is one hing. Fully complying wih he

mandaes o ile I is quie anoher. Mos saes are sill sruggling o ully comply.10

More imporan han procedural compliance are he qualiy o he sysems and he

resulsand his is where sae deparmens o educaion are sill coming up shor.

In-deph sudies o paricular areas o sae responsibiliy reveal he degree o

which sae educaional sa numbers and experise are challenged and srained

by ile I. Te qualiy and rigor o sae sandards and assessmen sysems remain

suspec.11 Anoher case in poin: Supplemenal Educaional Services provisions

ha require uoring programs or sudens in sruggling schoolsprovisions haserve only a racion o ile I schools and sudensare no being me by sae

ile I adminisraors, including requiremens o:

Develop an SES provider applicaion process or he organizaions seeking o

provide uoring Encourage a broad array o providers o apply Develop an applicaion review process ha includes evaluaion crieria, rubrics,

and commitees o reviewers represening sakeholder groups Develop a sysem or monioring and reporing on provider perormance

Indeed, he requiremen ha saes monior he perormance o Supplemenal

Educaion Services providers, which range rom naional companies such as

Kaplan o communiy-based nonpros, poses a signican capaciy problem or

mos saes. Sae coordinaors repor ha hey urn o exernal evaluaors and

oher ouside expers o help hem deermine how o assess he relaive impac o

providers on suden perormance, and saes recognize hey lack he sa exper-

ise o develop a sysem.12

Saes complained as early as he 2002-03 school year ha hiring reezes andspending caps limied heir capaciy o do heir job horoughly.13 Ye in all o

2006, he problem persised: a Cener on Educaion Policy survey o sae educa-

ion agencies revealed ha more han wo-hirds o he saes were only somewha

or minimally able o monior SES provider qualiy and eeciveness, and hree


10/28


saes were no able o monior provider perormance a all.14 By 2007, mos saes

had largely complied wih he requiremen o selec supplemenal service provid-

ers and creae sysems or monioring heir perormance, bu were sill unable o

link suden achievemen wih provider perormance.15

Moreover, he way sae educaion adminisraors used heir waiver auhoriyunder ESEA, which enables hem o li specic requiremens or whole packages

o requiremens or disrics ha apply or his relie, reveals a limied capaciy or

appeie or innovaive or aggressive approaches on he par o mos saes.Sae

educaion agencies did no seize he opporuniy o encourage school disrics o

mee sae educaional goals in creaive ways wih he so called Ed-Flex waiver

auhoriy, which was enaced in 1994 and permited wide-ranging relie rom

ESEA and oher requiremens. Insead, sae adminisraors ocused on he

echnical allowabiliy o paricular waivers, bu oen ell shor in holding disrics

accounable or meeing he original legislaive purpose.16

In ac, more han a decade laer, wih addiional waiver auhoriy available, many

disrics remained unaware o he fexibiliy o innovae available hrough waivers.

A ormer ederal ocial who oversaw he analysis o he waivers allowed under

he 2002 reauhorizaion commened in 2007: local fexibiliy has done litle o

aler local spending, encourage innovaion, or caalyze signican new eors o

improve suden achievemen.17

Te upsho: sae educaion agencies limied capaciy, revealed hrough heir

adminisraion o ile I and relaed provisions, led o weak accounabiliy sys-

ems and litle encouragemen or craing creaive local programming. More un-

damenally, he evidence on waivers and Supplemenal Educaion Services raises

quesions abou he saes capaciy o suppor soluions o persisen problems o

school ailure. Many sae educaion agencies remain ill equipped o elici school

disrics bes problem-solving eors or o ideniy, ve, and oversee ouside par-

ners or he dicul work ha ile I requires. o his we now urn.


11/28

State capacity to implement Title I | www.americanprogress.

State capacity to implement Title I

Sae se-asides in he ile I law or program adminisraion and, especially,

or school and disric improvemen are arguably inadequae o suppor he

mandaed sae responsibiliies. Sae capaciy issues relaed o improving low-

perorming schools and school disrics sem in par rom limied dollars, bu we

argue ha he problems go well beyond he unding challenges. So les rs look

a he sae o saes ile 1 adminisraive unding, and hen a he special prob-

lems wih he saes abiliy o assis low-perorming schools and school disrics

under ile I o he Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac.

The state o states Title I administrative unding

Te unding available o saes or heir adminisraive responsibiliies under ile

I is modes a bes. Te program has wha is called a sae se-aside, which allows

sae educaion agencies o reserve up o one percen o he ile I unds allocaed

o schools in heir sae o pay or general sae-level adminisraive work. In he

2008-09 school year, his one percen was, on average, approximaely $2.6 million

per sae. (see able 1 on page 9) Since he average cos o a ull-ime proessional

sa members salary and benes is in he high ve gures, he average se-aside

would und 30 o 40 sa o adminiser he 588 provisions o he ile I program

saewide. One sae adminisraor summed i up quie simply: Te problems are

many and we are ew.18

Whas worse, addiional ederal unds made available o saes specically o

address he mos challenging par o he lawhe requiremen ha hey assis

low-perorming schools and school disricsdo no mach he need.19 Wha

saes can spend or his purpose, like he general adminisraive se-asidediscussed jus above, is se by he overall ile I ormula. Te more schools and

disrics a sae idenies or improvemen, he ewer dollars he sae can spend

on helping each one.


12/28


o illusrae, in able 1 we divided he school-improvemen se-asides available

o each sae educaion agency or 2008-09 by he number o disrics ha he

sae had idenied or improvemen, revealing ha wha a sae could spend in

assising each disric ranged rom less han $2,000 in Monana o nearly $2 mil-

lion in Michigan, which had idenied only one disric. For mos saes, he

allowable amoun was very small in relaion o he number o disrics ha coulduse sae assisance, le alone he individual schools: he average or saes was

abou $94,58020 per idenied disric, and he median was a mere $21,000, no

enough o suppor even a single ull-ime sae employee.

Te inadequacy o sae se-aside unding or improvemen suppor is no secre,

as evidenced by he Presidens Budge reques or scal year 2009, which high-

lighed he problem:

Curren law permis Saes o reserve jus 5 percen o school improvemen

unding o pay or he saewide sysems o inensive and susained supporor and improvemen or local educaional agencies [LEAs] and schools. Tis

limiaion has mean ha ew Saes have been able o deliver on he No Child

Le Behind promise o meaningul and subsanial assisance o LEAs and

schools idenied or improvemen. 22

A ha ime, he Adminisraion said i would propose auhorizing a en-old

increase in he Secion 1003(g) se-aside or school improvemen, raising

i rom 5 percen o 50 percen.23 Ta proposal, however, did no make is

way ino he Adminisraions recommendaions or ESEA reauhorizaion,

A Blueprin or Reorm.24

Ye increasing ile I se-asides may no, in he end, increase sae capaciy

because many acors limi he hiring capabiliies o sae agencies besides und-

ing. Sae legislaures usually allow sae educaion agencies a xed number o

sang posiions, which means hese agencies canno simply hire an addiional

person o carry ou he work even i hey have he money o do so, says he

Cener on Educaion Policy eam ha has been sudying sae educaion agency

capaciy or years. 25 Mos sae employees are ied o a paricular program or

unding source and canno be redeployed. Sae employee salaries are seldomhigh, making i dicul or sae agencies o atrac and reain alened, highly

skilled sa. And agency downsizing is requen. Indeed, he sae educaion

agencies o Illinois, Georgia, and he New York Sae Educaion Deparmens

Oce o Elemenary, Middle, Secondary, and Coninuing Educaion all expe-


13/28

State capacity to implement Title I | www.americanprogress.

Table 1

State Title I administrative set-asides, 2008-09

State

Estimated Title I, Part A

allocation set aside for state

administration in FY 2008

(1% of TOTAL Title I, Part A)1, 2

Estimated school improvement

grant allocations set aside for

state administration (5% of

Sections 1003(a) and 1003(g))3

Districts

identified for

improvement4

Average allocation

per district for state

assistance under

Sections 1003(a) and (g)

Alabama $2,151,919 $811,416 0 NA

Alaska $400,000* $156,597 25 $6,264

Arizona $2,747,767 $1,012,641 63 $16,074

Arkansas $1,442,678 $552,926 246 $2,248

Caliornia $16,988,081 $6,488,027 299 $21,699Colorado $1,353,915 $520,490 85 $6,123

Connecticut $1,155,620 $421,276 36 $11,702

Delaware $400,000* $144,092 7 $20,585

District o Columbia $472,949 $177,278 0 NA

Florida $6,562,553 $2,518,239 67 $37,586

Georgia $4,462,710 $1,682,948 37 $45,485

Hawaii $443,366 $168,987 0 NA

Idaho $466,626 $181,919 72 $2,527

Illinois $5,939,803 $2,148,042 184 $11,674

Indiana $2,471,093 $925,710 42 $22,041

Iowa $727,173 $273,842 24 $11,410

Kansas $953,592 $378,129 11 $34,375

Kentucky $2,085,509 $796,003 72 $11,056

Louisiana $2,948,430 $1,113,538 0 NAMaine $515,250 $195,853 2 $97,926

Maryland $1,922,394 $715,249 2 $357,624

Massachusetts $2,333,536 $872,650 104 $8,391

Michigan $5,272,548 $1,989,492 1 $1,989,492

Minnesota $1,269,364 $476,745 204 $2,337

Mississippi $1,873,459 $699,533 0 NA

Missouri $2,252,054 $848,327 346 $2,452

Montana $435,548 $163,659 97 $1,687

Nebraska $602,459 $235,861 0 NA

Nevada $807,547 $305,751 0 NA

New Hampshire $400,000* $143,003 39 $3,667

New Jersey $2,867,652 $1,071,048 42 $25,501

New Mexico $1,131,562 $425,309 21 $20,253

New York $12,267,861 $4,520,379 27 $167,421

North Carolina $3,585,703 $1,363,566 60 $22,726

North Dakota $400,000* $125,979 20 $6,299

Ohio $5,117,965 $1,920,901 116 $16,559

Oklahoma $1,484,056 $559,774 0 NA

Oregon $1,399,869 $544,223 17 $32,013

Pennsylvania $5,655,176 $2,130,131 54 $39,447

Rhode Island $529,785 $195,669 4 $48,917

South Carolina $2,055,970 $776,555 59 $13,162

South Dakota $415,386 $156,218 6 $26,036

Tennessee $2,390,718 $904,816 3 $301,605

Texas $12,993,563 $4,937,125 190 $25,985

Utah $600,191 $227,786 3 $75,929

Vermont $400,000* $124,065 53 $2,341

Virginia $2,260,957 $855,151 0 NA

Washington $1,918,529 $741,637 97 $7,646West Virginia $996,071 $373,739 26 $14,375

Wisconsin $1,990,303 $724,410 2 $362,205

Wyoming $400,000* $118,539 3 $39,513

Mean $2,602,338 $978,730 56 $94,580

Median $1,484,056 $559,774 26 $20,419

Source: (1) Estimates based on TOTAL FY 2008 ESEA Title I, Part A allocation data downloaded rom U.S. Department o Education website:http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/sthistbypr01to08.pd. FY 2008 unds are used in districts in school year 2008-0921. (2) Section 1004(a) stipulates that each state may reserve either one percent o its Title I, Part A allocation or $400,000,whichever is greater. Asterisks next to set-aside estimates or ve states refect our assumption that these states opted to reserve $400,000. (3) Estimates o the state set-aside or school improvementgrants to districts are based on a strict calculation o the ormula (i.e., 4% o total Title I allocation), although the actual amounts might vary slightly due to a hold harmless provision o the law (Section1003(e)). (4) Obtained rom Consolidated State Perormance Reports retrieved rom USED website. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/sy08-09part1/index.htm.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/sthistbypr01to08.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/sthistbypr01to08.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/sy08-09part1/index.htmhttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/sy08-09part1/index.htmhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/sthistbypr01to08.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/sthistbypr01to08.pdf


14/28


rienced sang reducions ranging rom 27 percen o 38 percen beween

1995 and 2005.26 As o 2006, 21 saes repored reducions in sang or pro-

grammaic cus a heir sae educaion agencies due o budge decis or heir

legislaors desire o shrink bureaucracy.27

Alhough he American ecovery and einvesmen Ac o 2009 provided aninfux o adminisraive unding or saes, i was probably no sucien o ully

address sae sang and resource capaciy issues. A review o he winning appli-

cans o he AR-unded ace o he op grans, which provided sizable und-

ing o help and encourage saes ha are working on promising reorm sraegies

inended o ransorm schools, oers insigh ino he amoun and ypes o sang

capaciy ha saes wan or heir eors o improve suden achievemen .

Te 12 saes ha won ace o he op grans all requesed unding or more sa,

proposing o add an average o 46 ull-ime sa (a median o 32). In addiion o

hiring dozens o sa, hese saes proposed o buy services rom exernal agencies,conracors, and colleges and universiies. Tey planned o expend, on average,

28 percen o heir ace o he op budges on conracual services.

A review o hese winning ace o he op sae applicaions sheds ligh on he

capaciies ha he saes migh use o assis low-perorming schools and school

disrics. Georgia and Florida are cases in poin. Georgia, or example, plans o use

is ace o he op unding in 2010 hrough 2014 o nally and ully reorm he

schools ha have ailed year aer year. Is plan acknowledges ha he sae will

need o ake a bolder, more aggressive approach o school improvemen in order

o urn around he 30+ schools ha have persised in improvemen saus or he

las seven years.28

Te sweep o Floridas planlargely dependen on exernal consulans raher han

sae employeesis even more sunning. Te Florida Deparmen o Educaion

plans in 2010 hrough 2014 o conrac wih vendors o, among oher hings.

Develop lesson sudy oolkis in mah, reading, and science Cenralize access o daa, repors, and applicaions or eachers and principals

Provide proessional developmen hrough daa coaches, a daa capain, and aninsrucional designer

Esablish clear approaches o measuring suden growh


15/28

State capacity to implement Title I | www.americanprogress.o

Tese seps by Florida and Georgia are iniiaives ha demonsrae he resources

and capaciies saes need o nally urn around chronically low-perorming

schools and, ulimaely, improve academic skills o low-income sudens. Bu

hese wo saes, buoyed by he massive inusion o ace o he op unds, are

ouliers. In he nex secion o our paper we ake a look a he special problems

mos saes ace in implemening heir ile 1 programs eecively.


16/28


State eforts to assist low-perorming

districts and schools under Title I:

A special problemTe saes are no making noable headway on he growing challenges o assising

sruggling school disrics and schools. In he lae 1990s, when asked abou ech-

nical assisance needs ha had gone unme under he Elemenary and Secondary

Educaion Ac, sae adminisraors mos oen said hey were unable o ge o

every disric ha needed or requesed help, or ha hey were unable o provide

ongoing, susained assisance or ollow-up.29 Litle did hey know wha demands

were soon o be placed upon hem by he 2002 reauhorizaion. Predicably, a

2007 Cener on Educaion Policy sudy o sae capaciy ound ha saes srug-gled o address he needs o low-perorming school disrics and schools due o a

lack o sang and resources.30

As he numbers o ile 1 schools and school disrics grew, saes prioriized

assisance, ignoring he needs o he many in order o address he needs o he ew,

chronically broken schools. A U.S. Deparmen o Educaion sudy o sae and

local implemenaion o he 2002 reauhorizaion o ESEA ound ha by he end

o he 2006-07 school year, mos saes (40) had creaed iered sysems o sup-

por or disrics and schools idenied or improvemen in order o balance he

demand or assisance wih saes limied capaciy o provide i. A iered sysem

allows saes o help high-need schools more inensively while mainaining a

leas a minimal level o suppor or oher idenied schools.31

Wih his sysem o riage in place, a Cener on Educaion Policy survey o sae

educaion adminisraors ound ha only 11 saes were able o provide echnical

assisance o a grea exen o disrics wih schools idenied or improvemen.32

And he number o disrics no making adequae yearly progress coninues o

grow, reaching 36 percen in 2009.33

In addiion o he sheer numbers, he challenges presened by persisenly low-

perorming schools and disrics require saes o work in new ways. Saes rec-

ognize ha, despie heir desire o help, here are no proven sraegies or urning

around disrics and schools. We don even have he research proo ha heres a


17/28

State eorts to assist low-perorming districts and schools under Title I: A special problem | www.americanprogress.o

design a he sae level ha works, said one sae educaion ocial, responding o

he survey o sae adminisraors conduced by he Cener on Educaion Policy in

2006; anoher sae ocial said: Nobodys gured i ou . . . we cerainly can say

o he sae legislaure or governor, Look, we know exacly wha o do, jus give us

he money. I don hink anybodys here ye.34

In ac, he usual ways o working a sae educaion agencies may impede heir

eeciveness in ackling problems o sruggling schools and disrics. According

o William Slonik, ounder o he Communiy raining and Assisance Cener

and an experienced provider o assisance o boh saes and school disrics, sae

eors o assis low-perorming disrics and schools have ailed or a variey o

reasons, bu he reasons include saes emphasis on regulaory compliance:

ransorming underperorming disrics is a nuanced and complex challenge

ha requires subsanial changes in hinking , behavior, and sysems. In sharp

conras, he srengh o sae deparmens o educaion is in he area o suppor-ing he exising policies and regulaions ha can a imes conribue o he very

underperormance ha is so prevalen in many disrics.35

Similarly, researchers a he Civil ighs Projec a Harvard Universiy observe

ha sae deparmens o educaion mus work in dieren ways o change

schools: equiring saes o inervene and orce change in schools and disrics

requires a very dieren sor o capaciy and experise han ha required or moni-

oring or unneling unds o local disrics.36

Forunaely, many saes are creaing or nding banks o expers o suppor hem

and o help hem address he problems o disrics and schools. As o he end o

he 200607 school year, 23 saes used regional ceners, area educaion agencies,

or couny-level oces o provide suppor o low-perorming schools.37 In addiion,

32 saes used exernal consulans or organizaions o supplemen heir capaciy

o assis low perorming schools. Whas more, ederal dollars suppor grans and

conracs wih organizaions ha oer echnical assisance o saes.

Bu he availabiliy o exper help is no cure-all. Indeed, i may no be reasonable

o expec each sae o nd and deploy a sanding army o echnical assisanceproviders wih he experise and skill o assis hem and heir school disrics.38

I akes ime and skill or saes o ideniy and ve he appropriae individual or

organizaion o mee a paricular disric need.


18/28


Early repors on sae eors under he ecovery Ac o urn around low-

perorming schools sugges ha he success rae is modes i no poor. 39 Wih

ile I school improvemen grans, saes have fexibiliy in awarding school

improvemen grans o disrics. Bu hey are now saddled wih he responsibil-

iy o weighing he relaive srengh o disrics abiliy o address specic school

needs. As seen in he adminisraion o he ile I Supplemenal EducaionServices provisions and waiver auhoriy by he saes, hey may sruggle o run

a compeiion or o ve organizaional capaciy. In he nex secion, we explore

dieren opions o x hese shoralls.


19/28

Options | www.americanprogress.o

Options

Tere are several opions Congress could consider when i reauhorizes

he Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac laer his year o mach he

legislaions demands o he saes capaciies o suppor ile I educaional

programs eecively across schools and school disrics. We believe hose

opions should include:

Cra a more manageable se o sae responsibiliies Provide ederal compeiive incenives or sae capaciy developmen Bypass he sae educaion agencies o award ile I unding o oher sae

agencies or non-pro groups Creae a sae consorium or ile I assisance

Les examine each o hese opions in urn.

Crat a more manageable set o state responsibilities

Te saes are simply incapable o successully compleing all he asks ile I

assigns o hem even i unding levels reurned o hisorical levels, which won hap-

pen given sae budge consrains and pressures on he ederal budge. Te opions

or remedying his problem begin wih scruinizing he laws requiremens.40

Some eciencies would ollow rom reducing sae reporing requiremens and

purging redundancies such as he audis ha are conduced by muliple agencies.

Te required sae repors assering ha he vas majoriy o eachers in ile I

schools mee he deniion o highly qualied, or example, are almos mean-

ingless exercises ha neverheless consume many work hours o sa a saeeducaion agencies.


20/28


Similarly, enorcemen o he supplemen-no-supplan provision, which aims o

ensure ha ile I sudens receive specially designaed resources, and enorce-

men o ile Is schoolwide programs, which are designed o commingle

resources or he bene o sudens in high-povery schools, could also be judged

an exercise in uiliy.41 Tese provisions could be grealy simplied hrough care-

ully craed sauory changes, as deailed in a companion paper by educaionatorneys Melissa Junge and Sheara Krvaric.42

o give saes a beter chance o living up o he imporan charge ha hey assis

wih educaional improvemen, he law could also shi he ocus rom sruggling

schools o sruggling disrics. Tis would grealy reduce he number o eniies

ha he saes would have o work wih. I would also help schools, because once

he disrics grow sronger, hey would be able o assis heir schools.

Some saes are headed in his direcion on heir own. In ennessee, or example,

he saewide sysem o suppor a one ime bypassed he disrics and workeddirecly wih schools. Aer he 2004-05 school year, however, he sae recognized

he need o build disric capaciy o assis low-perorming schools and included

disric ocials in he assisance process, paricularly wih respec o school

improvemen planning. Louisiana ook a slighly dieren pah, raining school

disric personnel o be members o he Disric Assisance eams ha worked

wih idenied individual schools on carrying ou improvemen plans.43 A recen

repor rom he Legislaive Analyss Oce in Caliornia also makes he case or a

disric- raher han school-based approach o sae assisance:

disric leaders make imporan unding and managemen decisions ha can

help or hinder he abiliy o schools o improve suden achievemen. , disrics

hire and assign school adminisraors and eaching sa, negoiae he erms o

collecive bargaining agreemens, and deermine how o disribue discreionary

resources. Disrics also provide criical suppor, such as selecing curriculum

and insrucional maerials, building/mainaining suden assessmen sysems,

and oering proessional developmen.44

In addiion, he repor raises he issue o sae capaciy as a cenral acor behind

he need o direc atenion and resources o disrics raher han schools. Workingwih 250 o 1,000 ile 1 disrics, while sill dauning, appears more manage-

able and susainable han working wih he more han 10,000 Caliornia schools

expeced o be idenied or ile I improvemen.


21/28


Provide ederal competitive incentives or state capacity development

Te ace o he op compeiion provides an inriguing model or urher innova-

ion in ederal-sae relaionships. For ile I adminisraion, i is quie possible

ha reaing all saes alike is unwise. Te ile I program may be beter served by

adoping wo key eaures o ace o he op:

Incenives or sae policy changeAid o hose saes ha can demonsrae heir capaciy o use he dollars eecively

Tis opion would raise he se-aside percenage or overall ile I adminisra-

ion and/or or school and disric improvemen, bu only or saes ha pledge

a sae mach and ha submi high-qualiy applicaions oulining heir plans and

capabiliies. Sae legislaures migh be moivaed o appropriae more unds or

sae educaion agency sa i heir appropriaions opened he door o winning a

compeiion or ederal unds.

In he seleced saes, he added unds would be seed money or he developmen

o more eecive sysems o ile I adminisraion. Tis compeiive approach

would enable saes ha proposed promising ideas o ry ou hose ideas. Te

added ederal unding would sunse aer wo or hree years, allowing a new group

o saes o qualiy as winners. Laer rounds o applicans, who would have gener-

ally sared ou wih less capaciy han he rs-round winners, would be able o

incorporae lessons rom hese oher saes ino heir plans.

Bypass state education agencies

While he previous opion ocused on he sunny prospec o added ederal und-

ing or sae educaion agencies ha can rise o a challenge, here remains he

problem o he many sae agencies ha sruggle. Wihin curren ile I law, he

opion o he bypass provides or ousourcing sae uncions. Tis opion could

be applied o a wider range o exising sae responsibiliies.

Currenly, or adminisraion o ile I migran educaion programs, Secion 1307auhorizes he ederal Deparmen o Educaion o bypass a sae deparmen

o educaion and award a conrac o anoher public agency or nongovernmen

organizaion o do wha he original agency canno do or chooses no o do. Te

law says his auhoriy can be invoked under he ollowing condiions:


22/28


i he Secreary deermines ha

(1) he Sae is unable or unwilling o conduc educaional programs or

migraory children;

(2) such arrangemens would resul in more efcien and economic

adminisraion o such programs; or

(3) such arrangemens would add subsanially o he welare or educaionalatainmen o such children.

A sae migh volunarily deermine ha i simply lacks he capaciy or will o

improve sruggling schools and school disrics. Tis proposed opion would

allow he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion o nd anoher eniy o ake on ha

work i he bypass auhoriy were exended beyond migran educaion programs

when Congress reauhorizes ESEA laer his year.

Indeed, ollowing he language o Secion 1307, he ederal educaion agency

migh even deermine ha a sae mus be bypassed involunarily. While hisopion would raise inergovernmenal hackles, he auhoriy has preceden wihin

ile I, and i deserves consideraion as a sick alongside he carros ha a reauho-

rized law migh oer o saes.

State consortiums or assistance

aher han rely on all saes o inven heir respecive wheels or ile 1 adminis-

raion, i seems more ecien o encourage and suppor saes o share resources

and experiences while drawing on a core group o assisance providers wih

relevan knowledge and experise. Tis opion akes a page rom he sae-led

iniiaive o produce Common Core Sandards in English language ars and

mahemaics as well as he sae assessmen consoria ha received unding under

American ecovery and einvesmen Ac o 2009.

Such a consorium or consoriums also could draw on he organizaions now

working in many saes wih and wihou ace o he op unding as parners

in school urnaround programs. A naional consorium or regional consorium

o saes and assisance providers could assemble inervenion eams o workwih low-perorming school disrics and schools. Tis would dier rom curren

ederal echnical assisance oeringsraher han seeking o build he capaciy

o each sae, a consorium would include saes and oher organizaions pooling

heir resources o design, build, carry ou, and improve approaches o he hardes

ile I problems, such as school and disric improvemen.


23/28


ile I could provide he opporuniy and incenive or consorium membership

i Congress amended ESEA o assign responsibiliies o he sae educaional

agency or a consorium o such agencies. Federal unding also could suppor con-

sorium research and developmen. Alernaively or in addiion, saes could pay

membership dues o gain access o consorium resources, and varying member-

ship levels could enile saes o varying levels o service.

Whaever ypes o consoria are considered, his opion would sill rely on sae

capaciy o se prioriies, ideniy needed experise, and broker consorium ser-

vices or disrics. I would hus necessiae renewed eors o build sae capaciy

or hese uncions. Indeed, under any o he suggesed opions some basic level o

sae capaciy or ile I adminisraion remains essenial. Coninuing o suppor,

inorm, and culivae his capaciy is vial work or he ile I program as Congress

akes up reauhorizaion o his criical law.


24/28


Endnotes

1 David K. Cohen and Susan Mott, The Ordeal of Equality: Did FederalRegulation Fix the Schools?(Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 2009); Ruby Martin and Phyllis McClure, Title I of ESEA: Is ItHelping Poor Children?(Washington: Washington Research Projecto the Southern Center or Studies in Public Policy and the NAACPLegal Deense and Education Fund, 1969).

2 Cohen and Mott, The Ordeal of Equality.

3 Center on Education Policy, More to Do, but Less Capacity to DoIt: States Progress in Implementing the Recovery Act EducationReorms (2011).

4 Steve Kaagan and Michael D. Usdan, Leadership and StateReorm: The Gap between Rhetoric and Reality.Education

Week, [May 5, 1993], available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1993/05/05/32kaagan.h12.html.

5 Council o Chie State School Ocers, Letter to Tom Harkin and Mi-chael Enzi [February 1, 2011],.available at http://bit.ly/dYGKY6?r=bb

6 Lew, Helen, Letter to Henry L. Johnson [March 29, 2006], cited inAngela Minnici and Deanna Hill, Educational Architects: Do StateEducation Agencies Have the Tools Necessary to Implement NCLB?(Washington: Center on Education Policy, 2007).

7 Gail L. Sunderman and Gary Oreld, Massive Responsibilities andLimited Resources: The State Response to NCLB (Cambridge MA:

The Civil Rights Project, Har vard University, 2006).

8 U.S. Department o Education, Oce o Planning, Evaluation andPolicy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Stateand Local Implementation o the No Child Let Behind Act, VolumeIXAccountability under NCLB: Final Report (2010).

9 Ibid.

10 Paul Manna, Federal Aid to Elementary and Secondary Education:Premises, Efects, and Major Lessons Learned (Washington: Centeron Education Policy, 2008).

11 Nancy Kober and Diane Stark Rentner, States Progress and Chal-lenges in Implementing Common Core State Standards (Washing-ton: Center on Education Policy, 2011); Paul Manna, Collision Course:Federal Education Policy Meets State and Local Realities (Washington:CQ Press, 2010).

12 Leslie M. Anderson and Katrina G. Laguarda, Case Studies o Supple-mental Services under the No Child Let Behind Act: Findings rom2003-04 (Washington: U.S. Department o Education, 2005).

13 Leslie M. Anderson and Lisa M. Weiner, Early Implementation o theSupplemental Educational Services Provisions o the No Child Let

Behind Act(Washington: U.S. Department o Education, 2004).

14 Angela Minnici and Deanna D. Hill, Educational Architects: Do StateEducation Agencies Have the Tools Necessary to Implement NCLB?(Center on Education Policy, 2007).

15 U.S. Department o Education, Oce o Planning, Evaluation andPolicy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Stateand Local Implementation o the No Child Let Behind Act, VolumeVIITitle I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services:Final Report (2009).

16 Enacted in 1994 in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the Edu-cational Flexibility Partnership Demonstration (Ed-Flex) permittedselected states to waive many provisions o Title I and o otherelementary and secondary programs within and beyond ESEA.Waivers could be granted statewide or or particular districts orschools. The idea was to remove impediments to local creativity inprogram implementation in exchange or accountability or educa-tional results, with SEAs in charge o approving waivers and trackingthe outcomes. For evaluation ndings, see Jacqueline Raphael andShannon McKay, Analysis o the Education Flexibility PartnershipDemonstration Program State Reports: Final Report (Washington:Urban Institute, 2001).

17 Gayle S. Christensen, Evaluation o Flexibility under No Child LetBehind: Volume IExecutive Summary o Transerability, REAP Flex,

and Local-Flex Evaluations (Washington: Urban Institute, 2007);Margery Yeager, Stif Armed: No Child Let Behinds Unused Fund-ing Flexibility (Washington: Education Sector, 2007).

18 Kerstin Carlson LeFloch, Andrea Boyle, and Susan Bowles Therriault,Help Wanted: State Capacity or School Improvement, AIR Research

Brie(Washington: American Institutes or Research, 2008).

19 From the our percent o Title I unds that states are supposed toreserve or school improvement grants to districts (Section 1003(a)), they may set-aside up to ve percent or their own work withdistricts or schools identied or improvement. In addition, aseparate source o unding or school improvement (commonlyreerred to as School Improvement Grants or SIGs) was authorizedunder Section 1003(g) and received its rst appropriation in 2007;like Section 1003 (a), states may set-aside up to ve percent orstate administration.

20 Including Michigan, with only one district identied or improvement,

roughly doubles the cross-state average. With Michigan removedrom the calculation, the average would be approximately $48,000.

21 Center on Education Policy, Title I FundsWhos Gaining and WhosLosing. School Year 2008-09 Update. (September 2008).

22 U.S. Department o Education, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Summary(February 2009). http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget09/summary/edlite-section2a.html

23 Ibid.

24 U.S. Department o Education, A Blueprint or Reorm: The Reauthori-zation o the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (March 2010).

25 Minnici and Hill, Education Architects.

26 Sunderman and Oreld, Massive Responsibilities.


28 Georgia Race to the Top Application, Appendix A30: Georgia RT3Budget Narrative, p. 106. (Atlanta: Oce o the Governor, June2010). Downloaded rom U.S. Department o Education website:http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/appendixes/georgia.pd
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1993/05/05/32kaagan.h12.htmlhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1993/05/05/32kaagan.h12.htmlhttp://bit.ly/dYGKY6?r=bbhttp://bit.ly/dYGKY6?r=bbhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1993/05/05/32kaagan.h12.htmlhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1993/05/05/32kaagan.h12.html


25/28

Endnotes | www.americanprogress.o

29 Leslie M. Anderson and Megan Welsh, Making Progress: An Updateon State Implementation o Federal Education Laws Enacted in1994 (Washington: U.S. Department o Education, 1999).


31 U.S. Department o Education, Volume IX.


33 Center on Education Policy, How Many Schools and Districts HaveNot Made Adequate Yearly Progress? Four-Year Trends (2010).


35 William Slotnik, Levers or Change: Pathways or State-to-DistrictAssistance in Underperorming School Districts (Washington:Center or American Progress, 2010).

36 Sunderman and Oreld, Massive Responsibilities.


38 In Caliornia, the county oces o education (COEs) had someinternal capacity to support district needs related to the alignmento curriculum, instruction, and assessments to state standards, butthey had limited or no capacity to help districts in such areas asscal operations and human resources. To meet their districts needs,providers relied on outside experts such as retired aculty and ad-ministrators, private providers, or personnel rom neighboring COEs.

39 Center on Education Policy, An Early Look at the Economic StimulusPackage and the Public Schools: Perspectives rom State Leaders (2009).

40 For suggestions about where to start, see Gene Wilhoit, Testimony,U.S. House o Representatives Committee on Education and theWorkorce, March 1, 2011. http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/news/Wilhoit_Testimony_Education_Regulations_Burden%20_March_2011.pd

41 Melissa Junge and Sheara Krvaric, An Examination o How theSupplement Not Supplant Requirement Can Work Against the PolicyGoals o Title I (Washington DC: Center or American Progress, 2011).

42 Melissa Junge and Sheara Krvaric, How the Supplement-Not-SupplantRequirement Can Work Against the Policy Goals o Title I A Case orUsing Title I, Part A, Education Funds More Efectively and Eciently(Washington DC: Center or American Progress, 2011).


44 Elizabeth G. Hill, A New System o Support or Low-Perorming Schools(Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analysts Oce, 2008).
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/news/Wilhoit_Testimony_Education_Regulations_Burden%20_March_2011.pdfhttp://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/news/Wilhoit_Testimony_Education_Regulations_Burden%20_March_2011.pdfhttp://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/news/Wilhoit_Testimony_Education_Regulations_Burden%20_March_2011.pdfhttp://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/news/Wilhoit_Testimony_Education_Regulations_Burden%20_March_2011.pdfhttp://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/news/Wilhoit_Testimony_Education_Regulations_Burden%20_March_2011.pdfhttp://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/news/Wilhoit_Testimony_Education_Regulations_Burden%20_March_2011.pdf


26/28


About the authors

Brenda Turnbull is a co-ounder and Principal o Policy Sudies Associaes, a

research and evaluaion organizaion ha sudies improvemen iniiaives in educa-

ion and youh developmen. Her sudies o inergovernmenal school-improvemen

eors under he Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac have included leader-ship o many sae and local sudies or he Policy and Program Sudies Service o

he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion. Currenly, or he Insiue o Educaion Sciences,

she is co-Principal Invesigaor or he Naional Evaluaion o he Comprehensive

echnical Assisance Ceners. In he 1990s she was a member o he Chaper 1

Commission. She conduced research and paricipaed in reporing o Congress or

hree Naional Assessmens o ile I in he 1980s and 1990s. She holds an Ed.D. in

Social Policy Analysis rom he Harvard Graduae School o Educaion, where she

co-chaired he Ediorial Board o he Harvard Educaional Review.

Leslie Anderson is a Managing Direcor a Policy Sudies Associaes where shedirecs research and evaluaion sudies o naional, sae-, and local-level educaion

and youh developmen policies and programs. Much o her work has ocused

on sudying he implemenaion o ederal programs and policies, including

he No Child Le Behind Ac and earlier auhorizaions o he Elemenary and

Secondary Educaion Ac. For he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion, she direced

he Sudy o Implemenaion o Supplemenal Educaional Services under he

No Child Le Behind Ac, he Sudy o Sae Implemenaion o he Improving

Americas Schools Ac and Goals 2000, he Sudy o Educaion esources and

Federal Funding (under subconrac o AI), and he Naional Evaluaion o he

McKinney Homeless Assisance Ac: Educaion o Homeless Children and Youh.

In addiion, rom 2003 o 2006, she direced he sudy o disric implemenaion

o NCLB or he Cener on Educaion Policys repor series, From he Capial o

he Classroom. She holds an M.P.P. rom he Universiy o Chicago.


27/28


28/28

About the Center for American Progress

The Center or American Progress is a nonpartisan re-

search and educational institute dedicated to promoting

a strong, just and ree America that ensures opportunityor all. We believe that Americans are bound together by

a common commitment to these values and we aspire

to ensure that our national policies refect these values.

We work to nd progressive and pragmatic solutions

to signicant domestic and international problems and

develop policy proposals that oster a government that

is o the people, by the people, and or the people.

Center for American Progress

1333 H Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 202.682.1611 Fax: 202.682.1867

www.americanprogress.org

About the American Enterprise Institute

The American Enterprise Institute is a community o

scholars and supporters committed to expanding libe

increasing individual opportunity, and strengtheninree enterprise. AEI pursues these unchanging ideal

through independent thinking, open debate, reasone

argument, acts, and the highest standards o researc

and exposition. Without regard or politics or prevaili

ashion, we dedicate our work to a more prosperous

saer, and more democratic nation and world.

The American Enterprise Institute

1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 202.862.5800 Fax: 202.862.7177

www.aei.org

American Enterprise Institutefor Public Policy Research