If your education role is in the area of Title I or IDEA, or if you would just like a better picture of how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will impact public schools over the next couple of years, you owe it to yourself to read the overviews of each of the major program components put up on the U.S. Department of Education’s (USDE) website earlier this week. Although unanswered questions remain, the series of documents offer a thorough summary of ARRA as it applies to education.
After reviewing these materials, I came away with a clearer understanding of the education funding goals and limitations. Here are a couple of key points of emphasis.
“Spend the money quickly to save and create jobs”, states one of the principles listed in the document The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Saving and Creating Jobs and Reforming Education. States will be receiving the majority of the stabilization, Title I and IDEA funds by the end of March with little paperwork required to trigger the federal allocations. Rarely does this happen, and it is a clear indication of the federal government’s goal to get the dollars to school districts in time to impact 2009-2010 budgets. The balance of the funding should be available to states by July 2009, after full applications are submitted.
No doubt jobs can be saved by this quick action. For example, the town of East Hartford has included a $2 million contingency line in its education budget proposal pending the outcome of the ARRA funding. Fast movement of the funding to states, and a hopefully quick pass-through process from the state to local education associations, will prevent the local board from having to make job cuts or other reductions by getting this contingency funding into the actual school budget.
Possible uses of the funds by school districts are more restricted for Title I and IDEA, and less so for the stabilization funding. And while rules governing maintenance of effort, (supplement not supplant), remain in effect for the Titled program components; there is some potential for flexibility depending on special circumstances. While saving and creating jobs is a desired result, guidance stresses that the funds must be spent in such a way that a “cliff” is not created. In other words, creating a bunch of new positions that are guaranteed to be eliminated in two short years when the stimulus funding ends makes no sense. So there is some conflict here between the stated goal and the short term nature of the funding.
In some ways, it makes more sense to spend these dollars on programs and services that can have a positive and long term impact even after the money is gone. Professional development, technology upgrades, and program improvements that can be accomplished within the next 12 to 30 months, with an impact that extends beyond that time frame, is essential.
With the bulk of the federal money to be in state hands within a few weeks, and virtually all of it by the start of the new fiscal year, the governor, legislature and the State Department of Education are going to be tested to duplicate the speed of the feds – getting logistics and questions ironed out quickly to make sure there are no undue delays in putting these funds to work.
More on this to come…
When you talk about using the Stimulus Money for professional development, technology upgrades, and program improvements, what do you mean? Could you elaborate a little more, please?
James,
Here are a couple of examples. In the area of professional development, money could be used to cover classrooms teachers who are released to attend training programs. Districts could purchase training programs on more effective use of technology in the classroom. Laptop computers and software could be purchased for student use at home. Instructional materials and library stock could be updated. Same for science labs. The idea is to spend on those things that won’t necessarily require continued funding beyond 2011 but will have a positive impact that can extend beyond that date. Thanks for the comment.