|
David
Blount, Editor
Although much legislative action in this area has been in
the budget process, there have been a few noteworthy statutory
enactments in recent years concerning remediation and at-risk
student programming. In 1995, the Joint Subcommittee Studying
Remedial Summer School Programs began studying summer remediation
programs. The work of this group evolved (as did its name,
to the Joint Subcommittee on Remediation) into an evaluation
of the public school remediation system and then, following
passage of the revised Standards of Accreditation (SOAs),
into a study of the impact of the Standards of Learning (SOLs)
and SOAs on remediation programs.
Most significantly, in 1997, approved legislation directed
the Board of Education to establish standards for remediation
programs, which included a required evaluation of the remediation
programs in terms of the pass rate on the Standards of Learning
tests, and required reporting of demographic and educational
data of students receiving remediation. HB 2056, enacted in
1999, required emergency regulations for remediation programs;
first for remedial summer school and SOL tests by August of
that year, to be followed by regulations for SOQ remediation,
dropout prevention programs and at-risk add-on programs by
August 2000. Standard 1 of the SOQ has been finetuned over
the past several years to stipulate that students are required
to attend remediation programs if they do not pass the Literacy
Passport Test (LPT) or any of the SOL tests, and that they
may be required to attend remediation if they do not pass
all of the SOL tests. Remediation programs must include procedures
to identify students at risk of failing the LPT or SOL tests,
and school divisions must report on students’ successful
completion of remedial program objectives if the students
attended due to their SOL test performance.
In 1995, the General Assembly enacted 22.1-199.1 which established
the statutory structure for funding, with such funds as appropriated,
various programs designed to assist students at-risk of school
failure. These programs included a voluntary K-3 class size
reduction program in schools with the highest concentrations
of at-risk students and a full-day pre-school program for
at-risk four-year-olds. Presently, the state appropriates
funds to provide such education to 60% of the at-risk four-year-olds
not served by other programs. This act also established a
block grant program for funding the various services targeted
to at-risk students. In 1998, this section was changed to
allow school divisions with existing half-day (four-year-old)
programs to apply for the funding. However, no additional
funding was included in the budget to implement this measure.
SB 170 (2000) amended this section to increase the pupil/teacher
ratio from 8:1 to 9:1 and increases maximum class size by
two (from 16-18) for preschool programs, thus allowing more
students to be served with existing facilities and staffing
levels.
In 2000, the Commission on Educational Accountability (1999)
was directed to continue the work of the Joint Subcommittee
on Remediation. The directive recognizes that the SOL and
SOA requirements have stimulated the need for more remedial
programs and services as school divisions work to reach the
student pass rates that will be required with full implementation
of the SOA in 2007. It charges the Commission to determine
future remediation needs before the remediation system is
revised to recognize the impact of the SOL and the SOA requirements.
Similarly, the Department of Education, responding to a legislative
directive, is gathering information from local school divisions
to assess the various remediation programs now in place. The
outcomes of these studies likely will spur further alterations
to the state’s system of remediation.
1998 – HB 414, HB 431, HB 471, SB 399
1999 – HB 1513, HB 2056
2000 – HB 380, HB 975, HB 1043, HB 1353, HB 1355
(Innovative Remedial Education Pilot Program), HB 1484, SB
170
In late 2000, Congress approved a new $1.2 billion school
construction package. Three-quarters of the funding is targeted
to an emergency school repair program, with competitive grant
money going to high-need school divisions. The remaining $300
million will be available for school improvement projects
related to educational technology or for special education
costs.
National School Boards Association, “An Investment for
Student Achievement,” 2000.
Click here for a policy issue briefing on “Remediation/At-Risk
Student Equity Funding.”
Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide
comments or additional information. Please indicate in an
e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new
inclusions. Back to Top
Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if
CEPI is credited.
|
