May 2003 — Special Feature
Print this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Implementing the Complexities of NCLB
\par \par\par We determined that all districts that received Title II, Part D, competitive funding were required to do the online part of the enGauge process, while selected others would do the on-site portion of enGauge as well. Although there was a bit of apprehension in having to complete the enGauge requirements, we were pleased that 87 districts registered for both the online and on-site parts of the training this semester, including some that received no grant at all but wanted to "engage" along with their fellow districts in the process.
\par \par\par Challenge 6: Reporting Results
\par \par\par Districts that completed the full enGauge process in 2002 were allowed to use that data for reporting. We intend to have a third of the districts in each consortium do the full on-site enGauge process annually until all LEAs receiving funding have baseline data. Then, we will ask them to do the full online and on-site enGauge process after three years of professional development intervention. We expect these results will be sufficient to meet the federal reporting requirements and assist LEAs greatly in their school improvement process. Currently, NCREL is assisting the WDPI in developing a "School Improvement" planning tool that will be used by districts with schools in need of improvement.
\par \par\par Challenge 7: Updating Technology Plans
\par \par\par Part of the NCLB requirement for states is that they either update their existing plan or develop a new state technology plan. Since most of the recommendations in our original state technology plan, written in 1996 with an addendum published in 2000, have been implemented or addressed, our state superintendent appointed a statewide task force to create a new technology plan. We hired a retired educator to facilitate the work of the group with the goal of publishing the document by mid-March. This plan will be submitted to ED for future funding approval.
\par \par\par In addition, E-Rate, NCLB and Advisory Committee eligibilities require that each district has a technology plan, as some of our state-technology funding programs do. There is also a state requirement that school boards and districts must have a long-range library media plan on file. To assist our districts in creating combined long-term media/library and district technology plans, we are currently providing free workshops to our districts on how to do just that. Two consultants from the Instruc-tional Media and Technology Team - one with school library background and the other a technology consultant - are leading the workshops. We've urged districts to bring teams of educators, and the response and attendance have been overwhelming. It is obvious we are meeting a great need, with more workshops scheduled for the spring semester.
\par \par\par Challenge 8: Onward & Upward
\par \par\par While many of these initiatives are taking time to implement, we believe that we are on the right track. Also, with the assessment and accountability requirements in NCLB, we believe that districts currently participating in enGauge and the formal planning process for developing a combined technology plan to meet state and federal requirements will know what their needs are, as well as be better able to meet future federal requirements. The process the state developed should assist in bringing about school improvement and implementing professional development for quality teachers. We believe that all we are doing in the area of education technology helps to meet the goals of the New Wisconsin Promise and the intent of NCLB requirements.
