| OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS SPRING 2001 programs, or creating new programs there must be an overarching rationale for decisions that are made. This requires care to not embrace a plan to consolidate programs just because it sounds like a comprehensive change. Those programs, which work, ought to be preserved. Those, which fail, ought to be consolidated, but it is important to understand the implications for local schools before eliminating programs. 2* The federal government should strive to decrease bureaucracy in education whenever possible* Schools are organizations with teachers having tremendous responsibility. They generally do not have other employees to fill out grant applications, process forms, or interact with government agencies. Things should be as simple as possible, and they should be administered at the local level. Less bureaucracy means fewer strings attached, and it means that programs are administered at the local level. It does not inherently mean state instead of federal; rather it means fewer layers through which funds and administration should pass. 3* The federal government should address areas of crit^ ical national concern* The historic model of federal involvement in education is not all wrong. It is based on targeting funds to offset local burdens and meeting identified national objectives. Coordinated efforts to solve specific problems should continue to be a priority of federal education policy. 4* The federal government should fund education within the context of fiscal responsibility* There are many valuable federal priorities within and outside of education which must be weighed out. It is irresponsible to not budget for expenditures. What is necessary is a framework for decision-making, whereby expenditures and revenues are examined, debt is paid down, and valuable federal programs are protected. THE RESULTS OF COMMON SENSE The federal government only provides approximately seven percent of funding for local schools and alone it cannot address all the challenges Utah faces in education. Local solutions and local commitments will be necessary and must be sustained to continue Utah's legacy of educational quality and success. However, following the above principles would lead to a federal education policy that would make sense in Utah. 1* If the federal government keeps its promises local schools can better address their unique concerns* Although the federal government does not control the class size in Utah, one of the best ways to address this problem is for the federal government to meet its obligations, for example, fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This act promised the states that the federal government would provide for 40 percent of the costs associated with educating special needs students. Over time the federal contribution on behalf of IDEA has never risen over 15 percent. This leaves a tremendous burden on local schools since the cost of educating these students is astronomical. Decisions in federal court require local schools to educate children, however the mandate is not matched by federal funds. The answer is simple. Educating these children is the right thing to do. Providing federal funds to help offset the state's expenditure is appropriate because they place such a burden on the local schools. If existing programs such as IDEA and Title I are funded first, it is assured that the most needed funds will get to schools. Then, when looking at consolidation of programs and funding other initiatives these principles can be kept in mind. Let me give just two examples of how this may help Utah. One of the only sources of funding for ongoing teacher training in Utah is the federal Eisenhower Professional Development Program. School Board members report that they have seen greater increases in student achievement through these training activities, than any other program. Nevertheless, over-crowded classrooms are the norm in Utah. Current plans to consolidate the Eisenhower Professional Development Program with Class Size Reduction may free money for a moderate decrease in class size, but it could also remove one of the only sources of professional development available to teachers. Institutions of higher education have also effectively used this funding to provide training for teachers, particularly in math and science. Adjusting this program and administering it to the state may remove the opportunity for universities to obtain these funds. Secondly, many schools in Utah have started after-school programs using the 21st Century Learning Center grants. These funds pay for homework clubs, which have dramatically increased student academic achievement. They allow for schools to open early and stay open late so that students have a safe place to be rather than on the streets. Often, Utah schools can obtain these competitive grants through hard work, innovation, and teachers' commitment. However, formula allocations frequently shortchange Utah's students because they are based on population or the per pupil expenditure made at the state level (such as with Title I). In a state with the lowest per pupil expenditure and a rapidly increasing student population not always reflected in census data, changing the allocation and administration of these competitive funds may remove the only designated source of money for effective after school programs in Utah. It is an examination of the implications of such program consolidation that must occur before decisions are made at a federal level. In addition, these existing programs should be a priority over new, in order to assure that Utah does not have to cancel effective programs. 2* If the federal government works to decrease bureau^ cracy local educators will be more empowered* Accountability measures implemented at the local level will actually create educational success. Utah recently passed U-Pass leg- 85 |
