[Dryerase] AGR Vermont federal aid

[Shawn G]

Asheville Global Report
www.agrnews.org

Vermont may reject federal aid

By Liz Allen

Asheville, North Carolina, Aug. 20 (AGR)—  The state of Vermont may refuse 
$26 million offered through President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 
in order to avoid having to comply with the Act’s requirements. The act, set 
to take effect the 2002-2003 school year, consists of mostly Title I money 
aimed at helping disadvantaged children and serves as the most comprehensive 
overhaul of secondary and elementary education since the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965.
NCLB’s testing requirements state that schools receiving federal money must 
test all students in grades 3-8 annually for proficiency, and must make 
adequate yearly progress or face reprisals. Currently, Vermont tests 
students in grades 4, 8 and 10 but does not have sanctions for schools that 
do not meet certain standards. Vermont Governor Howard Dean, a Democrat 
considering running for president in 2004, has called the act “a terrible 
mistake on the national level,” and estimates the burden of implementation 
to cost local school boards and taxpayers as much as $60 million to 
implement.
Dean also fears the act will create incentive to “dumb down” Vermont’s 
testing system in order for some schools to avoid being sanctioned.
According to Dean some schools are not reaching proficiency standards 
because the standards were deliberately set high. But, by NCLB regulations , 
those schools could be labeled as “failing” and risk losing federal money if 
they do not improve, creating incentive to simply create easier tests
Dean also has apprehensions over the act’s provisions allowing the military 
access to student databases and the promotion of “constitutionally 
protected” school prayer by requiring local school districts to report to 
the state education agency any programs that could be a hindrance to prayer.
Although the NCLB is promoted as respecting state and local control over 
education Dean criticizes it as being “incredibly top down and intrusive.”
The Act requires states to implement a single, statewide accountability 
system to ensure adequate yearly progress. The Act requires all students to 
meet proficiency standards by the 2013 – 2014 school year through meeting 
incremental yearly goals.
Locally, Asheville City Schools Superintendent Robert Logan responded to the 
requirement saying, “Is that realistic? What is magical about the next 10 – 
12 years?”
He suggests the goal of 100% proficiency by 2013 is simply public policy, 
not based on projections that consider the fact that students learn in a 
different ways and take different amounts of time.
Asheville City School students, who are currently tested annually in grades 
3 – 8, have an average of 81.6% proficiency in reading and 84.6% in math, 
would be required to increase their proficiency by 1.5% and 1.4% 
respectively per annum.
NCLB requires “students who are disadvantaged, students from major racial 
ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English 
proficiency,” to have separate annual measurements and achievement goals in 
closing the achievement gap. Logan believes this aspect along with the 
mechanism necessitating higher teacher standards, “has the potential to have 
the greatest impact on public education since Brown v. Board of Education.”
However, he does not believe there are going to be enough resources to close 
the gap.
Ninety five percent of the students in each subgroup are to be assessed to 
find proficiency rates. Alternative assessments may be given to students who 
are considered to have “significant cognitive disabilities.”
Presently, there is a proposal to limit the number of students who take the 
alternative assessment. Graduation rates are also a part of the adequate 
yearly progress measurement.
If a school fails to meet annual goals for two consecutive years they must 
make available public school choice to all students enrolled in schools. 
After a third year they must offer supplemental education programs.
Failing schools may be identified for improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring. If identified for improvement the school must develop or 
revise a plan for improvement using “not less then 10%” of funding to 
incorporate “scientifically based strategies” to improve core academics and 
professional development. Other requirements are “extended learning time 
strategies” and promotion of “effective parental involvement.”
Corrective action involves continuation of all requirements failing schools 
are held to plus at least one of the following: “replacing school staff, 
implementing a new curriculum, decreasing management authority at the 
school, appointing an outside expert to advise school, extending the school 
day or year, and reorganizing the school internally.”
Schools identified for restructuring must also must meet requirements for 
failing schools as well as prepare a plan for an alternative governance 
arrangement.
Alternative governance arrangements include “reopening the school as a 
public charter school, replacing all or most of the school staff, entering 
into a contract with a private management company to operate the school as a 
public school, turning over the operation of the school to the state 
education agency or any other major restructuring of a school’s governance 
arrangements.” If in the next year the identified school fails to make 
adequate yearly progress they must implement the alternative governance 
plan.
Local education agencies that are identified by the state education agencies 
for improvement may face deferred programming or reduced administrative 
funds, the appointment of a trustee in place of the superintendent and 
school board, and/or the restructuring or abolishment of the local education 
agency.
For Vermont, the final decision on whether to accept the money and the 
ensuing requirements lies in the hands of the state legislature who will 
discuss the subject in their next session beginning the first week of 
January 2003.
The US Secretary of Education Rod Paige has accused Dean as being unwilling 
to test children and ignorant of how well the students of Vermont are 
achieving. Spokeswoman for the governor’s office, Susan Allen maintains, 
“[Although] Secretary Paige has implied the governor is not concerned about 
testing, the governor very much supports assessment. Vermont has a very 
stringent testing and assessment program. It goes much further than the 
federal law requires.”
Vermont is so far the only state proposing to reject the money.
According to Allen, rejection of the money would not be because the state 
does not care about needy children but rather because of the cost of 
overhauling its testing program. Allen stated, “We love our children. We 
hope we have the same goals as the secretary – improving education.”



_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com