Print
Illinois tightens rules on supplemental
service providers
State's rules target cost, quality of tutoring and other services
Too many states have taken a kid-glove approach to dealing with supplemental educational service (SES) providers under the No Child Left Behind Act, and the result has been too many tax dollars directed to groups that are providing tutoring and other services that are shoddy, overpriced or both.
Now, Illinois is tackling the problem head-on with proposed new rules designed to keep SES providers accountable for both the cost and the quality of their services. The rules received final approval from the state board of education at its August meeting. The new regulations beef up application criteria to more closely review a provider’s educational program, add requirements for detailed financial reporting and implement procedures to ensure a provider does not charge the district more than its actual cost for services. The rules also add a mandatory code of ethics for all providers as well as enhance monitoring through data collection, reporting and site visits.
“We applaud Illinois for moving rapidly and proactively into an area where there is great potential for fraud, abuse and waste of taxpayer dollars,” says AFT deputy director Nancy Van Meter, a privatization specialist for the union. She says that the state board’s efforts to ensure that SES providers charge rates that reflect their actual cost of services “will help ensure that public dollars go the farthest” in reaching children. Anecdotal evidence suggests that too many SES providers are charging fees that bear no relationship to their actual costs, and the result is fewer children served.
When it comes to quality, Illinois also is taking its proper role on the front end of the process by toughening the application procedure and demanding that providers show proven effectiveness with underachieving students based on the results of state, district or nationally recognized exams. This could curb the practice of companies using questionable “in-house tests” to show their programs’ merits. Providers “will have to clock in enrollment and achievement data on a regular basis” under the proposed rules, Van Meter adds.
NCLB requires school districts to make supplemental services available to students from low-income families who have attended schools that, according to the law, have not made sufficient progress. Services may include tutoring, remediation or other education interventions provided outside the regular school day.
“Illinois is taking the lead in addressing issues that are just beginning to catch the attention of policymakers in other states,” Van Meter notes. “We applaud the state board of education for moving so quickly and encouraging other states to push for similar safeguards.”
Florida reveals AYP disconnect
The Brothers Bush at loggerheads on NCLB
So what is a “failing school”? It depends on which Bush you ask.
The latest evaluations tied to the No Child Left Behind Act have revealed a major disconnect between the federal law and Florida’s own accountability system, called the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). In fact, 27 percent of Florida’s “A” and “B” ranked schools did not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB in 2005. The disparity generated embarrassment among public officials—and more than a little consternation among frontline educators who are receiving mixed signals from federal and state authorities.
As August brought the start of a new school year, many Florida schools that were making gains on the FCAT and in relatively good shape under Florida’s A+ accountability system still were considered so ineffective that they were deemed in need of restructuring under NCLB.
In an effort to align the two systems, U.S. Education Department Secretary Margaret Spellings approved several measures that would give some flexibility to the state’s AYP calculation. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced that schools deemed to be “high performing” under his state’s system but identified as “failures” under NCLB would be given a new “provisional AYP” label.
But this quick fix only seemed to add to the confusion.. . In mid-August, the state education department sent a memorandum to school districts indicating that there was little practical difference between a “provisional AYP” school and one that simply failed to meet adequate yearly progress under NCLB.
Hurricanes spark AYP adjustments
Spellings offers two options for schools affected by Katrina, Rita
The U.S. Department of Education in September offered guidance for the thousands of schools that will find it difficult or impossible to meet adequate yearly progress benchmarks tied to the No Child Left Behind Act.
In a Sept. 29 letter to the nation’s chief state school officers, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings outlined two options for schools either directly battered in the Gulf Coast storms or those that have seen their enrollments swell with students displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Under the first option, states and districts may exercise existing national disaster provisions under NCLB. The current law does not require a school or district to move forward on the school improvement timeline if the reason for not making AYP is “due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural disaster.” This option is open to any state or district with schools that are situated in federally declared major disaster areas and have sustained damage that forced them to close “for a significant period of time.” Schools and districts that meet these criteria are eligible for a delay in AYP reporting and sanctions for the 2005-06 school year.
The second option is aimed at schools or districts that have enrolled large numbers of displaced students, even if the schools were not damaged in the storms. These schools would be allowed to establish a separate subgroup of displaced students for the purposes of AYP reporting and accountability. This route would require a formal waiver and would be good for the 2005-06 school year only. Waiver requests must be supported by evidence from the state, preferably student achievement data, showing that the reason a school failed to make AYP was an influx of displaced students or other hurricane effects.
Spellings stops just short of saying these schools would not be subject to AYP sanctions if their performance lags in 2005-06, but that seems to be the clear signal from the Education Department. “The unique nature of the hurricanes this year requires unique solutions, governed by common sense and compassion,” Spellings wrote to the state school officers. She said the department will work with states to help them understand the similarities and differences between their own content standards and assessments and those of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Additional details are available at www.hurricanehelpforschools.gov/.
