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 The review process had the reviewers working off-site, with a half-day orientation to the grant process. All reviewers read the same application as part of the orientation, then met in pairs to discuss their findings, develop a final score, and complete the scoring forms and comments. We also brought the group together to discuss how they scored the application. This provided them with a full understanding of the way the process worked. Then, they continued to work in groups of two or three to examine the rest of the proposals and discuss their findings until all applications were scored. All scoring forms and comments were returned to the applications' writers at the end of the review process.
\par \par\par Challenge 4: Final Review
\par \par\par Since scoring is only part of the evaluation, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (WDPI) staff reviewed all other criteria, such as geographic distribution. Our advisory committee recommended that at least one subgrant be awarded in each of our 12 Cooperative Educational Service Agency (CESA) regions of the state. Since the Title I formula grants ended up distributing funds to almost every district (all but 29) statewide, we may not need to follow this suggested dissemination for competitive awards in the future.
\par \par\par The Advisory Committee provided the state superintendent with a list of applications for review and final decision, which they recommended for funding. Many of the requested budgets were reduced for various reasons, including reader comments, federal requirement of "an equitable distribution among urban and rural areas," and other criteria identified by the Office of the State Superintendent. When we reduced the budget, we allowed applicants to decide which part of their application would be changed or cut. In November 2002, we awarded 23 grants, involving 204 districts, with implementation beginning upon notification. Projects will be completed by June 30, 2003, and project performance reports will be filed online to ED by December.
\par \par\par Challenge 5: Assessment & Accountability
\par \par\par The Advisory Committee met in October to determine recommendations for needs assessment and accountability. We felt this was one weakness in the TLCF program - there was not enough baseline or post-grant data to determine if the funding made a difference. We also knew there would be some performance reporting required of states and LEAs receiving the funds. We were looking for an assessment process that would provide us with more than just "perception data" about the effective use of technology and allow us to be compatible with federal law.
\par \par\par Several options were discussed, but the unanimous decision was to require funded districts to participate in the enGauge process (www.ncrel.org/engauge) to determine baseline data and effectiveness. EnGauge is an online and on-site program developed by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) with the Metiri Group. It provides districts with a framework for understanding the systemwide factors that influence the effective use of educational technology, as well as an online assessment tool that districts and schools can use to measure systemwide effectiveness.
