The following table contrasts seven major assumptions (preconceptions)
the Seattle Public Schools held prior to participating in the Local Flexibility
Demonstration Program with the realities now understood through participating
in this federal program initiative. This information should be helpful
to districts considering whether or not to apply for "Local-Flex
authority" under this program.
| Subject |
Assumptions (Preconceptions Prior to Participating) |
Realities (Understood through Participation) |
| Application Process |
The application process was going to be complicated
and would require an immense amount of time and effort to complete
the application. |
The application process was relatively straightforward and did
not require a lot of extra effort given that the District already
had transformation plans for improving the academic achievement of
all of its students. The U.S. Dept. of Education provided guidance
and “high quality technical assistance” to the District
in the development of its Local-Flex application. |
| Perceived Benefits for Participating |
The perceived benefits for participating were not significantly
greater than the benefits already offered districts through the "transferability
provisions" under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. |
As local conditions changed (i.e. reduction in total revenues and
more students at-risk of not meeting State accountability standards)
the benefits for participating in this program increased. It allowed
us to be more timely in responding to these changing conditions and
to use these dollars in ways that were not permitted under the discrete
categorical nature of these federal programs. |
| Coordination with State/U.S. Dept. of Education |
Coordination of this effort between the District,
the State Office of Public Instruction and the U.S. Dept. of Education
was viewed
as one that was going to be difficult and time-consuming with a potential
for significant "negotiating" and "compromising" by
all parties. |
The District received a great deal of timely technical assistance
from the U.S. Dept. of Education in the development of the District's
plan and in the implementation and operation of the plan. Given that
this is a "demonstration program" there has been little
compromising on the part of the District. The coordination of this
effort has been very smooth; we have received a lot of support from
both the U.S. Dept. of Education and our State Office of Public Instruction. |
| Administration and Management |
Given the 4% administrative cap placed on the funds consolidated
under this program, the District thought it might have difficulty
in administering this program and in integrating the administration
of this program with other federal and State special purpose programs. |
The U.S. Dept. of Education allowed the District to apply its authorized
indirect cost rate (3.2%) to these federal programs. This was in
addition to the 4% allowed for administrative purposes. Given our
ability to consolidate these funds, the overall management effort
for these grants has significantly been reduced. |
| Accountability for Student Performance |
There would be greater and more stringent District accountability
for student achievement under the Local-Flex Program than that which
would exist under the discrete categorical programs consolidated
under the plan. |
The accountability for student achievement is the same under the
Local-Flex Plan as it is for the District under the State's
accountability standards. |
| Private School Consultation |
Extending "Local-Flex authority" to private
schools was seen as being problematic in terms of consultation, access
to District services, program accountability and monitoring, tracking
and reporting of expenditures. |
Extending "Local-Flex authority" has in fact resulted
in increased coordination, higher quality instructional programs,
and improved relations between the District and private school officials.
It has allowed private schools to consolidate funds in sufficient
amounts to mount program interventions of sufficient size and scope
to improve student performance. |
| Evaluation and Reporting Requirements |
Given that this is a "national demonstration program,"
it was thought that the evaluation of the program would be more detailed,
demanding and visible than the evaluation requested by the State
Office of Public Instruction for the discrete grant programs consolidated
under this program. |
The evaluation of this program is more focused upon the attainment
of State standards rather than focused upon the individual program
goals of the discrete grant programs. The results of this evaluation
has helped the District to better modify strategies and target services
to students and schools most in need of attention and supplemental
services. |
The resources and tools provided on this website
are brought to you by The Northeast and the Islands Regional Technology in
Education Consortium (NEIRTEC) and its partners in collaboration with the US
Department of Education. For more information, contact jnesbit@wested.org.
This page last modified—July 22, 2005.
