May 2003 — Special Feature
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Implementing the Complexities of NCLB
\par \par\par Wisconsin is home to the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and its 100,000 students; it also serves K-12 districts with as few as 125 students. Therefore, we were very aware when setting up the State Superintendent's Technology Education Advisory Committee that its membership had to reflect the range of district sizes and the diversity of students statewide. We also included representatives from a cross section of various organizations, universities and colleges. The committee's mission was to navigate through a comprehensive and complex law to ensure that the funds were distributed equitably to districts that demonstrated plans consistent with our state objectives. We met a number of challenges along the way, each of which we dealt with as its own unique problem but always in the context of the greater goal of the law: to close the achievement gap.
\par \par
\par
\par \par Challenge 1: Finding a Funding Formula
\par \par\par Since many of our small districts did not qualify to apply for the competitive funding individually, we expected many consortia to be created (or, in some cases, continued from previous grant processes). So, one of the first charges for the Advisory Committee was to determine direction, as well as a scale of funding for individual districts and for con-sortia of different sizes. We came up with guidelines for the maximum amount local education authorities (LEAs) could request in their RFP application for the competitive grants, which is shown in the chart below.
\par \par\par Necessarily, MPS, with its large enrollment and number of students in poverty, fell outside of these guidelines. The committee determined that MPS could apply for 15% of the distributable funds, which is the same percentage they received in the previous year under TLCF. In addition, NCLB requires that a minimum of 25% of grant money be used for professional development. However, Wisconsin had already been requiring that 70% of its TLCF grants be used for professional development. We didn't want to diminish our commitment to professional development, so our fiscal 2002 competitive grants required that at least 60% of the budget requested be used for professional development on integrating technology into curriculum.
\par \par\par Challenge 2: Education & Dissemination
\par \par\par Our next task was to let districts know how to apply for the funds. We held two videoconferences, including 16 at sites around the state, to provide technical assistance to districts and consortia in completing the competitive grant applications. (Earlier we had held workshops for Title II, Part D, formula grants.) The process allowed eight weeks to write the competitive applications. And our efforts paid off: we logged and reviewed for eligibility 44 competitive applications submitted. Only two did not qualify because they failed to meet the "high poverty" requirement as mandated by NCLB and defined by the state.
\par \par\par Challenge 3: Who (and How) to Review?
\par \par\par We wanted to ensure that the external review team included a broad range of expertise and experience, such as representatives from other state agencies and higher education, so we solicited volunteer readers from the field who had not been involved in writing any of the applications.
