 |
 |
Temple University Center for Research
in Human Development and Education |
|
|
No Child Left Behind: New Flexibility for Technology Funding
112
by
Julia A. Stapleton*
Elizabeth Public School District, New Jersey
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002),
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, contains provisions for flexibility or transferability
of funds among some subgrants or programs that enable school districts to target funds for their unique needs.
Districts may transfer up to 50% of the federal dollars they receive as formula or entitlement among certain programs,
including educational technology. This techno-brief will focus on the educational technology funding provisions and the
options for flexibility in NCLB.
Educational Technology Funding in NCLB
The NCLB specifically allocates federal funding for educational technology-both in formula or entitlement funds
and for competitive grants-in Title II Part D: Enhancing Education Through Technology Program.
The educational technology funds are allocated to each state and are distributed to local school districts.
Fifty percent of the allocation is distributed as entitlement or formula to those local education agencies or
school districts that are eligible for Title I Part A, while 50% is distributed via competitive grants.
The competitive component is to be determined by state departments of education. These grants are expected to
promote innovative state and local initiatives that increase academic achievement and provide professional development.
|
|
| |
Funds will be allocated to the states annually for fiscal
years 2003 through 2007 with funding levels based on the
states' yearly allotments under Part A of Title I.
Estimated Allocations for
States Served by MAR*TEC
(Millions of dollars)
|
State |
Entitlement Funds |
Competitive Funds |
Total Educational Technology Funds |
|
Delaware |
1.5 |
1.5 |
3 |
|
Maryland |
4.5 |
4.5 |
9 |
|
New
Jersey |
7 |
7 |
14 |
|
Pennsylvania |
11 |
11 |
22 |
|
District of Columbia* |
1.5 |
1.5 |
3 |
*Note:
For purposes of determining allotments, the District of
Columbia is considered to be a state.
There are two key requirements for educational technology funds from Title II Part D:
- Professional Development. Local recipients of funds are required to use at least 25% of the
funds for high-quality professional development.
- Internet Filtering. Because the act requires local education agencies to have technology to filter or
block visual depictions that are obscene, pornographic, or harmful to minors, funds may be used to purchase filtering or
blocking software.
In May, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) began a series of regional meetings to share information about NCLB,
including guidance on the flexibility of certain funds. Among the key points made are the following:
- Local school districts can make spending decisions for up to 50% of their non-Title I federal funding.
- Flexibility applies to non-Title I federal funds, including teacher quality, technology, after- school learning, and Safe and Drug Free Schools.
For example, a local school district has the option of redirecting up to 50% of its federal technology funds to recruit quality teachers (see
USDE,
2002a, Slides 42 and 43 ).
This flexibility provision could pose a challenge for efforts to increase educational technology funding in our schools. Local school districts may choose to increase technology funding if this is their strategy for improving student achievement. On the other hand, they might choose to transfer 50% of the entitlement portion away from educational technology to provide more funds for other areas. Hence there is a need to be proactive in securing key resources for educational technology.
Transferability or Flexibility
Flexibility or transferability is described in a fact
sheet on the NCLB
website guide for parents (USDE, 2002b), and detailed in
NCLB Title VI Part A (USDE,
My.Ed.gov, 2002, Sections 6121 through 6123 ).
Page
1 2
3
Next |
