Not So Distant Future

A day ago I emailed AskArne my concerns regarding cuts to the National Writing Project and Improving Libraries grants.

This morning I received this response:

Response (Monica Salas) – 03/10/2010 09:47 AM
Dear Carolyn Foote,

Thank you for contacting the United States Department of Education through AskArne@ed.gov.

We appreciate hearing your suggestions and thoughts on the 2011 budget request. Your comments have been entered into our comments database that is reviewed by the Secretary and his senior officials.

The current Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes numerous programs with similar purposes, creating fragmented and inefficient funding streams that too often led to a greater focus on complying with program requirements rather than improving student outcomes. Rather than running large numbers of separate grant competitions and monitoring compliance, the Administration’s reauthorization proposal would consolidate 38 existing ESEA programs into 11 new authorities that allow the Department to direct funding to proven or promising practices while providing greater support and technical assistance to grantees.

The National Writing Project would be able to compete for continued funding under the proposed Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy authority.

Thank you for your commitment to improving public education.

Sincerely,

Monica Salas
Information Resource Specialist

Information Resource Center

My response:

I found the Dept. of Education’s response somewhat confusing.  At one point it says that the Department will “direct funding to proven or promising practices” and in the next paragraph it says that the NWP will be able to ‘compete’ for funding.  So I sent my questions back in an email for clarification, and am also copying them here.  I’ll share if I receive a response.

My email response:(excerpted):

This morning I received an email from Monica Salas in response to my email about the funds for the National Writing Project and for the Improving Literacy through School Libraries grants.
 
In the email, she explained that the 38 existing programs would be consolidated under 11 new authorities that “allow the Department to direct funding to proven or promising practices while providing greater support and technical assistance to grantees.
The National Writing Project would be able to compete for continued funding under the proposed Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy authority.”
 
Some questions I have–
 
–What are the 11 new authorities?
–Is the National Writing Project one that the Department will “direct funding to”?  
–What is the difference between the Department “directing funding” and the NWP “competing” for funding–those sound like two different things?
–Would this “competition” for continued funding for NWP be at the state or federal level?   And why have a program “compete” for funding if it has been proven successful and is one that teachers actually “want” to participate in?
–What happens to the Improving Literacy through School Libraries funding?  Will libraries have to compete at the state level for this sort of funding?  What happens to states who are not participating? Since these were federal funded grants, previously, all states could potentially participate.
–I have heard that RIF is in the same situation.  IS that the case that RIF funding will be consolidated?
In total, I am trying to understand what this consolidation means for these programs and in what way will they “compete” for funding, and in what way will the Department direct funding to programs.

. . .I am not one who defends programs just because they are “vested” but when programs actually work, and are showing improvement in student achievement(which is the desired goal after all) and are running successfully, then what is the purpose in eliminating them or pitting them against one another in a  competition for funding?
 
Again, as a grass roots educator, librarian, and blogger, who is working in schools on a daily basis, I ask you to consider the voices of those of us “on the ground” in education.
 
To do what is right is not to make it easier for the government offices,  but to make schools better for teachers and students.  We do that by building on the experiences and successes, not by starting over with new programs or reorganizing ones that are already very effective.
 
I look forward to your response so I can better understand and represent to others these funding changes.

Carolyn Foote