Laserfiche WebLink
The 2017/2018 school year is a transition year as the new law is implemented. Unintended <br />consequences of several facets of the law are concerning, including: <br />W1 <br />VULNERABLE POPULATIONS <br />There are many individuals and groups worried that the accountability provisions of the new law <br />will not support nor adequately protect those most in need of better schools—students from low <br />income families, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities. <br />DISTRIBUTION AND FUNDING OF TITLE FUNDS <br />The School Improvement Grants (SIG) program, which had been funded at around $500 million, has <br />been consolidated into the bigger Title I pot, which helps districts educate low-income students. <br />Under the new law, states shall set aside either7 percent of all their Title I, Part A funds for school <br />turnarounds, up from 4 percent in current law, or the amount the state reserved for SIG in 2016, <br />whichever is greater. (That would give states roughly the same amount of resources for school <br />improvement as they get now through SIG.) It would be up to states whether to send that money out <br />by formula, to everyone, or competitively, as they do now with SIG dollars. Alternatively, the state <br />educational agency may directly provide those activities. Allowing competitive grants for at -risk <br />populations, even at a state level, may leave out many small, medium, or underfunded districts <br />that do not have the capacity to apply for funds. Due to anemic Title I funding, Springfield Public <br />Schools eliminated Title I services in four of its elementary schools that did not meet the eligibility <br />requirements for compulsory Title I funding (75 percent or higher participation in the federal Free and <br />Reduced Lunch Program), but still enrolls high numbers of at -risk students. Eliminating this service <br />translates to declines in academic support and intervention services for hundreds of students. <br />.Y 4 <br />