- Email: [email protected]
Michigan's experiences with the federal education block grant
Michigan’s
Experiences with the Federal Education Block Grant c.
School 01 Educxtion.
PIIf1.11’
The Cinivcrait!
Kf:AI
or Michigan.
Ann
Arbor.
MI 48109.
1J.S.A
Abstract The results of il dct;lilcd study undcrtahcn in Michigan to dctcrminc the impxt of the IWQ- 198.3 ;md 198.L 198-l. ;1rc Chapter 2 block grant in it> first two yxrs 01 implemcnt;ition. summarized in this ;Irticlc. Following ;t discussion of ch;mgcs in intcrgovcrnmcnt;lI rckltionships th;kt resulted lrom Ch;ytcr 2. m;lior ht;ltc dcckion~ ;lnd xtions that ccntercd on the hloch gr;mt progr;lm ilrc dcscrihed. Gener;ll ;md spccillc imprekon~ of the impact of Chapter 2. h;wd on ;,n in-depth study 01 nine public xhool districts ;IINI l’our non-public schools. compriac the m;ljor portion or the ;Irticlc.
INTRODUCTION
The
states
allocate DESPI-~I: its traditional and
1070s became
education. federal
At the elementary
expenditures
to
force
the
school
silent
also directed
IYhOs
in American
and secondary
in IYhO
expenditures. the
should a
who argued
that the federal
its
resources
limited
Representatives
levels.
increase and a
banker.
localities
On the other side stood
school
the
rose from $642 million
play
government
in public
during
in 10X0. a ‘I-fold
slice of all public
content
role
government a significant
to over $ I4 billion 743%
junior
the federal
finance,
and
out -
with
government and
Not
how
to
broad array of persons government
achieve
of special
interest
much justification
-
should use
national
goals.
groups
pointed
that
the federal
economically
disadvantaged
If states were
as many
of
the
free to spend federal
how schools should spend
money
Thus was horn one of the
orities would suffer. Additionally,
many members
threat educational debates of the 1970s - how much C control should be maintained at the federal level and
Congress believed
government
maintain
control
how
recipients
will spend federal
the federal
contribution.
much
discretion
local agencies? regdated
should
Should
there
categorical
grants
remain
in state
be narrow. or
and
carefully
broadly
The
defined
regulations
practitioners
stringent.
paperwork. of state argued.
To
them. required
and ignored
and
local
should arrke
many
who argued
are an unwarranted
decision-making. needlessly
wish.
over
1982-1083
impact
amounts of
\vith
Federal
as few
monq.
children
the!
how
the
into
Are
of
must
what
ways
28 separate
What Were
block
the off’?
has the
schools Has
of
Reagan’s categ-
grant
Consolidation
IYtil.
or worse
pri-
the resolution
a single
legislation?
realized’? better
saw
Education of
in
in President
to consolidate
Act
of that
and
federal
funds.
school year
programs 7 of
arguments
and other
at least in part.
Improvement
were
diverse needs and strengths
districts.
aid
Chapter
into local
regulations
inordinate
orical
that federal
intrusion the
state and
these
that the federal
successful efforts
On one side of the issue stood local district
as they
this debate.
block grants?
to
respects the needs of the educationally
states do not.
federal
decide
the money.
and
heen
the
supporters’ and
it made
school ;I
gre;tt
difference?
strings as possible.
This
181
article.
drawn
from
two
more
detitiled
reports
(Kearney
1983.
1984).
some of these questions
the impact of the Chapter education -
attempts
by offerinp
examination
on school
and local districts
specific puidancr activities. concern
through
ever.
a close
of nine intermediate
with Chapter the first
stance on ‘nOn-l-e~uI;it(lr\.
agency. but also
districts
of the experiences
and 1983-1084,
ot
2 block grant on Michigan
on the state education
and principally
to answer
an assessment
2 during
1982-19X3
and second years of the
program.
Both
of these
to state education
neither
issue
practitioners exception.
is
There
is no question
led
to
a
relationships.
RELATIONSHIPS
that Chapter
reshuffling
of
The reshuffling
First.
there
elimination
about
strong
grew out of the prior
level established Act (ESAA)
under
if not total
sets of relationcategoric&.
The
and the federal
the Emergency
between the local districts
School
Aid
state-federal
and the state agency that
IV-C
program,
as well as the
tie that was an inherent
part of that
program.
the
Second.
Chapter
2 generally
new relationships
and federal
has not resulted
among
levels. If anything.
the local.
Chapter
the bare minimums
ister the program.
This
As far as Chapter Administration
is particularly
true in terms
with the federal level.
2 is concerned.
IYXO Kepublican
deregulation
it appears that the in achiev-
in the education plank
Party
Platform.
by the Federal
namely.
Government
of
public education.” Third,
there
Michigan
is some evidence that Chapter
or.
more
mecliatc district gaff
leverage
to
titioncrs
of
in changed properly.
relationships.
convince the
local
viability
Tl11\ rc\huffling and fccleral
local-local
Intermediate
:~tlvent
of two
overall
programmatic
clo\elv
Dcpartmcnt
school
of
re-
1 (19X2-lYX3) of
Advisory
high
concerns
in evaluation
Committee
recommendations Committee first
school
additional
district
and usefulnrhs
of
coming
AND ACTIONS
was
the
related direction
on
districts
funds.
The
would
Education
cornins
the
25 ;I result
the of
its
Chapter and
policy
agency should monies
retain
for
Chapter that
and ‘p;~ss through’ After
mitted
himself
monies
to establish
adopted.
Chapter
2 program
debate.
administering district
The
be the
Board.
Committee’s
schools.
Board.
agency
could
he
was that
either
low achic\ ement.
the
the decision
at the local level. The
the local
was to be final issue.
spent the maiorlty
of its
of the formula
the XO”0 monies
A four-factor
the After
recommendation.
State
111.;ldclltion
or local
administer
by the
formula
to
to the local wab recom-
and adopted hv the State
to ;I membership
high cost tactor\ were incorporated -
issue dealt with
to
time. centered on the development districts.
grant proyram.
third
agency
the Committee
com-
and the State Board
for the non-public
the
3
X0”,)
of the 70”0
the intermediate
or the intermediate:
on which
$400.000
a discretionary
of whether
would
some
only the remaining
recommended.
district
the state
the State Superintendeni
the SO/l0 split.
the question
adopted
20’%, of the Chapter
to allocating
the Committee
2
the!
The second &sue
that is. whether
a full
The
intermediate
recommended
dealt with the .SO/20 split’.
The
issues.
whether
2
made
issues.
major
recommendation.
school
lack of
with
should be a11c1 the State Board of Education
inter-
from
dealt
he eligible
Committee
be used in ;llloc;iting
to the
State
four
of
by an initial
the
major
mended hv the (‘ommittec
in turn.
ibsucs:
as it
question
school
marked
for
had addressed
prac-
among the local.
has led.
was
activity
left to the partIes
and scrviccs.
of rclation4ips levels
2 in
local district-inter-
\ec C’haptcr 2 ;I\ providing
mediate clihtrict programs
U.S.
Year period
again adopted
has resulted
lationships
The
in some
both the federal and state levels,.
to the locals.
to admin-
has been quite successful
ing one of the goals identified the
relationships.
required
of local and state relationships
in
state
‘7 is marked
by an absence of intergovernmental except for
who express serious
lack of direction
the Committee’\
building
one
welcome the lack personnel
STATE LEVEL DECISIONS
grants are gone. Also gone are the ties
evolved from the Title
to
With
has taken one of three
strong ties between the local districts
state
level.
generallv
1IO\\
concern
2. in Michigan
local-state-federal
has been a demise
of the relatively
chips that
district
particular
of federal and state puidance and intervention.
from
of ..
apencv officials.
of
local districts
e\.aluation
are of substantial
at the local district
of the larger districts
forms.
regarding
issue4
exception comes from evaluation
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
has
2uidance‘ and the lack 0t L
and direction
dcscgregation
f&tot-.
three
into the formuki and \par\it)
For year 7. ;I\ far as the State !v;i\ ccmccrned it \\;I\ business
as u\u;11. No change\ wcrc
made in the
Michigan
Department
$8.405.634 7.591.277 814,357 I .890.694 1,6X1.360 209.334
Allocation Public Non-public Students Public Non-public
Source:
$X.SOS.3Y4 7.661.277 844.117 2,036,X30 1.834.685 202.145
Allocation Public Non-public Students Public Non-public
of Education
(IWO%) (88.9%) ( 11. lo/,)
(57.7’V”)
(9O.I%) (9.9%)
( IWO’%,)
(X3”/,,)
Membership
Table
$2.747.789 2.455.396 292,393 527.787 460.254 67.533
(18.9%)
(17.6”4,)
I%-I984
lY82-lY83
(17.7X)
$2.498.278 (17. I”/“) 2.222.188 276.090 374.63 I 327.317 47.314
$2.586.526 2.281.659 304.866 412.939 364.267 48.672
Desegregation
state totals.
I Y8?- I 9x.3
2 allocations:
Achievement
Chapter
$2.562.878 2.27 I 524 29 I.354 605.588 533.421 72.167
Records
I. EClA
(6.4%)
$924.369 (6.3%) XXI .9w 42,469 426.648 403.fKx? 23.640
$938.920 HY9.930 38.990 446.169 426.929 19.240
Sparsity
and IYX3-IOX4
$11.576.070 13.150.761 I .425.309
%14.S93.719 13.114.3Yl 1.479.328
Total
(IW.O%~) (90.2%) (9.8%)
(lOO.O’%>) (XY.Y’%) (10. l?“)
184
Economics
formula
and consequently
ter 2 funds changed comparison
of
Michigan Table of
from
year
distributive
in years
which
agency,
tinued
the
effects
or
the
the in
The
con-
intermediates
those 22 intermediates educational
media
another
allocated
which served also as regional
ha\,e remained
2.
approximateI! I ). In both
hO”,> of the funds were
the membership
of low achievement
factor:
the high-
and desegregation
for .?J’,i, o f the distribution
public iector’s five-fold
centers.
-
for the remaining
17”<) each:
h”,~. The
no,n;I
share was Y- 10”;, in both years -
increase
from
prc-Chapter
3 day,.
Year
3
will be no different. The
GENERAL
under
cost factors
fact.
with Chapter
the same from year I to year 2 (see Table
sparsitv accounted
IO’!:, for
an ‘rcccpted
becoming
The amounts received
accounted
to receive the same share of the allocation
7-.?I’!& for all 57 intermediates.
for the state -
Most districts are now comfortable
years I and 2 approximately
would
non-publics
ReLliew
\ource
The question
intermediate.
for
to be left to local choice.
continued
of
1 and 7 is presented
local
program
of Chap-
1 to year 2. A
1. The X0120 split also held firm.
administer
-
the
formula
the distribution
little
of Eduwtion
IMPRESSIONS
with
state
agency
Chapter
also 15 generalI!
comfortable
2: it also is considerably
dependent
upon the ‘-0 ’ ‘!/,I funds‘ that accrue to it from Chapter Local
school
generally
district
practitioners
view the Chapter
thing, as a program that gives them
that is worthwhile,
freedom
things that otherwise or as thoroughly.
the
might
titioners would
then
is the loss of the ESAA
local
in Michigan. rate Chapter
awaited
at
school
perhaps
district
without
improvement
positions
funding
would
agency,
while
prac-
A second general
the categorical
programs
importantly,
to an absolute
federal
regulation grant.
stance
The
of any federal grant.
the
state
Generally level
it
by
responsibilities
that
perhaps
Table 2. The Michigan
is
Chapter
this is viewed
Icvelx.
with
program its newness
uw
ot
with
as a positive
mixed
officials
charged
of
the
At
review\. with
Chapter
7
to be fast becoming at both quickly
idio\yncrasles
fast being resolved
as a rclativclv
unrestricted
state
and
wearing
off.
it\
and its availability
source of funds -
;I small source for most school districts.
Subpart A Suhpnrt B Subpart
albeit
but ;I larger
C‘
State administratlon Sea cliscrction;lr) srant
an local
Y7.l’Y 3.XhY ,676 35.lY5 250.~100 4~#).000
$3.h52.000
in the
at the local level.
evaluation
7- also appears
to hold on to what it had. not
$
has led to an
program. institutionalized
to the
continues
be-
more
in the new
in the areas covered
those for
the agency
Amount
of Education’s
guidance’
met
not
from year I
allocated
Departmcnr 01 Educarlon‘\ the 3l”<, k’und\
minimum
intervention
by practitioners
particularly
program.
absence at the state and local levels presence
development
and.
Department
on ‘non-regulatory
almost complete block
of and U.S.
2. little has changed
2
As can
government
grant
block
be of some but perhaps
from the $400.000
grant
Chapter
to the state
to most local districts.
to use the 70% fund\
of federal
came a part of the block in keeping
lose
? in Michigan
success of the federal
in deregulating
it would
to year 2. Apart discretionary
To
than 70
that comes from our
of the impact of Chapter
is the unmitigated
lYX3-1981.
better
and better than
and long-
in the packaging impression
2 to support
be of great consequence
serious consequence
funds for education. examination
in
be seen from Table in
exception.
9 as a much-needed
on Chapter
positions in the agency in IYXZ-IYX3 60
not get done as quickly
funds had not been included
grant.
2. It drew
to do some
The single ‘fly in the ointment’.
If the ESAA
block
Michigan
as a program
and flexibility
least for the urban districts. funds.
in
2 block grant as a good
Totals
to move
out in any different
staffing and programming indeed
have become
From and.
the point
to a much
practitioners. still small The
more
limited
the Chapter
million.
funds
policy-makers
extent.
2 program
Neither while
some
local is
nor the
a substantial
amount
of
a relatively to the total
of money when compared
state budget or even to the education IYK-lY8-l
monies
portion
the Governor
of the
and
little
apparent to
the
of Title of
fiscal strain.
this
pattern
fiscal
llowevcr.
was
seen
Asime
the
among
non-publics
in Chapter in
2 monies does not make an appreciable a $10
Commission (ACIR)
billion on
budget.
As
an
impression
with local public deal of careful
Intergovernmental
we
computers.
Relations
funds.
study suggests. a block grant is not going to
be of consequence dollars
are
national
.. .
substantial
expenditures.
same area. from
unless the
the
Chapter
amount
relative
total
federal
and to categorical particular
block
of federal to
programs
part
in the
excluded
but
in Michigan
that
thought
that If
visiting
funded
the district’s
local
result
be looking more
as
source
on it less
-
albeit
money perhaps
a short-term
as
somewhat
a relatively
It represents that
permits
they
windfall stable
minor
one
them
to do some
not have
done
and
districts
for
most
sum of
things
that
otherwise
or.
would not have done as quiclily
the same lev,el. This became
a bit more
or at
evident
in
year 2. It appears that there has been a minor shift in expenditure visited.
While
substantial 2
amon,.0 some of the districts we I saw these
of their
previously
is seeing
‘durable monies
vear
parts
expenditures year
patterns
goods’
types
penditures
staff.
of
IV-B.
but
3
staff develop-
and materials rather
that
which.
Elementary
(ESEA).
are pervasive.
3 ‘works’ _
with
and
This.
and
is that there is in
the
expertise.
interesting
the instrument
practitioners and
skilled
Education What
the federal
in planning. Are
but rather
had been selected the
categorical a cadre
project
we
as
government’s
20 _ vears produce
evaluation’!
Act would
if the block grant
goals’? Did
policy
of
the lY6S passage of
conjecture.
approach
of the past
array
that sprang
conjecture.
to achieve
education
approach
massive
programs
now
of
manage-
reaping
the
benefits‘? funded
not narrowly
under
focused.
Chapter
Block
a broad
array
Arbor’s
hiring of a facilitator
teacher
in-service
part-time
program:
of a mathematics
2 in year 2 are
grant funds are being of activities:
Ann
to help implement Ludington’s teacher
its
assignment
to provide
in-
service training to its teachers in the use of the micro-
ex-
computer
as a classroom
instructional
the
Harbor’s
hiring
minimal
districts are pickin, (7 up the slack; caused bv the loss
One
suggested.
is largely
have been our experience
ment
well-
funds.
of talent.
Secondary
of course.
than the categorical lY6S
7
were
that was fairly
own general
up during the 20 years following the
micro-
Chapter
for the most part. are
a ‘bank’
experiences
used to support
from
Chapter
buv
the purchases
or plan
and state categorical
Activities
to
and the like. It is not
equipment
l1av.e dropped.
Title away
of expenditures. toward
allocate
2 allocations
shifting
impro\~ements
that the instructional
districts
cov,ered under
a gradual
are going more
ment. curricular
Chapter
to with
and the like that has been built up as a
nevertheless
funding
a ‘no strings attached’
would
more probably.
are much more
2 in year 2. They seem to
continuing.
;I
districts.
local districts
with Chapter
out them
did.
WK
the nine which
well-developed
strategies
federal As we note above.
in
implemented from
has gone into
one exception.
Micro-computers
as components
know-how
comfortable
rushed
strategy
laid out.
is that a good
among
bought
that one reason Chapter
IMPRESSIONS
By
one gets from
and planning
had
they
of an overall
most
put it.
things.”
might argue. as some of our respondents
lY77).
in any other state.
SPECIFIC
IV-B
school practitioners
and some of them
carefully
sub-
(ACIR.
2 has yet to meet these criteria
or. for that matter.
the
outlays
grant”
visited
Advisorv
non-public
and materials.
Another
a district
dent
the
request
did not encounter
with
least
to
fiscal soundness to the state budget. The $18 million
preoccupied
plans
at
continue
2 funds. With
been
-
local administrator
the use of Chapter
have
to havjc
a notable exception
restoring
Legislature
gcncral
seem
strain
are still doing the old Title large.
own
IV-B
into local district hudgctary
evidence
schools we visited. and
by using their
purposes
equtpment
money in absolute terms. still represents
During
The
“They
in the program.
small amount budget.
IV-B
funds. with
in Michigan
the Governor
an interest
of Title
been incorporated
institution;llized.
have taken
$18
new
The 70%
of view, of state
potatoes’.
Legislature
way to fashion
priorities.
of three
work with primary
tool:
Benton
skills teachers
to
grade students having difficulties
186
Economics of Education Review
in reading and math: Grass Lake’s purchase of micro-computer hardware and software; Detroit’s support of its district-wide guidance and counseling program; East China’s establishment of a gifted and talented program for elementary school pupils; Carman-Ainsworth’s purchase of relatively expensive items to enhance its physical and biological sciences curriculum: Genesee Intermediate’s portfolio of services to local school districts; Powers Catholic High School’s program in the humanities: and Flint’s ‘rear-guard’ action to save its magnet elementary schools. These represent some of the activities being supported in the nine districts: in each district. except Detroit, there also are other activities being supported with Chapter 2 dollars. The discretionary grant program established through the use of $400.000 of the state agency’s 20% funds is viewed as offsetting. to some extent. the loss of opportunities for creativity and innovation resulting from the termination of Title IVC. While the $400.000 is significantly less than the state’s previous annual allocations under Title IV-C. there is some feeling that the potential for innovation inherent in Title IV-C has not all been lost. There are problems. Detroit, Flint and Benton Harbor are still big losers in absolute dollars because of the demise of ESAA. Detroit continues to experience ‘double jeopardy’. It loses dollars because of the demise of ESAA. but does not lose the obligation to conduct the activities the dollars supported. Detroit simply has no choice but to continue to assign its full Chapter 2 allocation to help fund the guidance and counseling component of its court-ordered desegregation plan. The coordinator of Flint’s magnet elementary school prounder a consent decree. c
staff and curriculum development activities. the non-public schools experienced few problems with Chapter 2. Participation in the block grant program appears to be going smoothlv. Three of the local districts in our sample work directly with the nonpublic schools and would have it no other way. They contend they are building on long-standing. important and positive relationships. Five of the districts leave the administration of non-public participation to the intermediate districts. They see no benefits - and no costs in terms of maintaining positive relationships - in administering the program directly. While a sizeable percentage of the non-public school children in Michigan participate in Chapter 2 activities. there is a number that do not. By and large. these children attend schools of a fundamentalist religious persuasion: the adherents are basically opposed to any governmental intervention in their schools and decline to participate in funded programs. The non-public schools in Michigan continue to be winners under Chapter 2. Their share of Chapter 2 resources continues to represent a five-fold increase over the resources available to them under the prior categoric&. This results. in part, from the non-public school becoming eligible for the same weighted allocation per pupil as the public school district in which it is located. even though the nonpublic school is not necessarily impacted by the same high cost factors. As we noted earlier. the non-publics tend to use their allocation to request ‘durable goods’ instructional equipment and materials covered previously under Title IV-B. rather than to undertake staff development. curriculum building and like activities. If there is a need that became evident. it is the need for training of staff in the non-public sector in the appropriate instructional uses of these ‘durable goods’. particularly computer hardware and software. It is not that they do not have the hardware. It is that they do not know how to use it. Educational reform is abroad in the land - and particularly in Michigan. The Michigan Commission on High Schools. the State Republican Caucus. the Speaker of the House and the State Board of Education have all issued calls for reform and three have backed up the calls with sweeping sets of recommendations. Local districts are responding to these calls. as well as to the national calls. Indeed. many of them had improvement efforts well underway prior to the issuance of the national and state
Michigan’s reports
and studies.
With
Experiences
one exception.
there has been little if any relationship reform
efforts and Chapter
exception
was
at
Chapter
2 funds
activities
designed
the
2 expenditures.
local
The lone
level
used to support
to help local districts
extent,
however.
between
intermediate
were
with the Federal Education
where
the program
state
agency
quite
effectively
respond
lines. evaluation the program
not
to
nor
influence
local
2 expenditures.
Chapter resent
a
decisions
Chapter
mechanism
to
fund
regarding
2 does not repreform
efforts
in
Generally,
local district practitioners
lack of any federal state presence.
presence.
associated
the substantial
red tape associated ally prefer
in paperwork
they
evaluators
technical
assistance
However.
state agency officials
are nowhere
Department
stance on ‘non-regulatory
guidance’.
frustration
in not being
answers
questions
to the apparent
the federal national
continuation 2 funding.
than for program considerable
Society programs the
call
evidence
of
the
and. consequently,
to
Program
at least Evaluators,
sons. probahlq
Lyndon
Robert
the
to a Great
Johnson and
Kennedy
the efficacy
block grant approach
of
of those
for
hard
programs.
from a categorical
to
a
may be the demise of program as
we
currently
generally
being
have contemplated
view
that
astute
per-
the possibilities
of such an outcome. j’st.
even though
the evaluators
of the
short,
the
from both the local districts’ perhaps
question
and. to a lesser
a general
impression
of ends.
For
of means the
local
as well as for many of the state agency
the packaging
of federal
with questions
aid rather
from
concern
mechanisms
the
ultimate
policy
aid -
is more
with
the
means.
being
interest,
served
by
a legitimate the
of
In effect. i.e.
the
a goal. than with
the goal itself. i.e. the question of whether national
a sort
questions
role should be and why.
being used to achieve
about
than questions
about the purposes and goals of federal
prior
there is a national
categorical.
Perhaps one should not be surprised at this. Perhaps questions and
about
only
national
can
national be
goals are best addressed.
addressed
effectively.
at
the
level by the Congress.
Acknowledgements -
evaluators
evaluation.
is a product
One result of the movement
function.
to support
of President
Senator
to judge
evaluation.
where little if
by concerns for self survival
survival.
extent.
at
that this
by the Congress of Chapter
may be more motivated
the
practitioner.
purpose
as a lack of
One might argue that program
In
2 center more on the question
than
was viewed
will be available
termination
fiscal
evaluators.
light.
about the efficacy
the
to get clear,
argue
are
locals gener-
local and state levels judgements of Chapter
what the federal
Program
The
is that at both the
legitimate
of the program
an eventual
A final impression,
They express a
will lead to a situation
any good evidence
near as
agency staff. This
as the state level.
fashion
apparently
administration
staff. there is a preoccupation
state.
and
aspects of
and timely
problems
on dead-
rather than a specific impression,
of removal
able
and other
positive
runs smoothly
in the area of evaluation.
leadership.
the local as well lack of direction
stance
a very
the
program
Information
up by telephone.
of Education’s
programmatic
they raise with federal
was particularly
of the
the
Any
the
procedures,
requirements
the state agency’s in
program
efficiently.
goes out in prompt
cleared
view
rather
With
to seek either from
sanguine about the U.S.
needed
gener-
in some
are not eager
or
where
They
and
2 funds will be spent.
of local
districts.
decisive
ally
administer
and the state agency’s viewpoints.
2. They also
with the program.
direction
certain
the
as well as the minimal
with Chapter
reduction
Chapter
exception
larger
welcome
to be left on their own to decide how and
on what their the
quickly
to
and direction,
application
districts.
program
Michigan.
welcome
local
decry the almost
guidance
and
allocations.
A Nation A/ Risk. The national and state reports did drive
administrators
appears
annual
1x7
Grant
total absence of federal
a series of to
Block
The rcscarch reported hcrcin was supported hy a grant from the National Institute ot Education (contract No. NIE 4(M)-X1-001) to E.H. White and Co. Contractors undertaking such projects under clovernment sponsorship are encouraged to express freely Z their professional judgement in the conduct of the project. Points of view) or opinions stated do not. therelore. necessarily represent official National Institute of Education or E.H. White and Co. position or policy. The author wishes to thank the manv. professional staff members of the Michigan Department of Education partlcularlv Daniel Schultz. Philin Hawkins. Patricia !Glocum. and Paul Novak - for their’gcnerous cooperation in the conduct of this study. Thanks are also due to the numerous intermediate district. local district and nonpublic school officials in Michigan who gave generously of their time and who contributed most of the information of which this article is based.
18X NOTES
REFERENCES
Experiences with the Federal Education Block Grant c.
School 01 Educxtion.
PIIf1.11’
The Cinivcrait!
Kf:AI
or Michigan.
Ann
Arbor.
MI 48109.
1J.S.A
Abstract The results of il dct;lilcd study undcrtahcn in Michigan to dctcrminc the impxt of the IWQ- 198.3 ;md 198.L 198-l. ;1rc Chapter 2 block grant in it> first two yxrs 01 implemcnt;ition. summarized in this ;Irticlc. Following ;t discussion of ch;mgcs in intcrgovcrnmcnt;lI rckltionships th;kt resulted lrom Ch;ytcr 2. m;lior ht;ltc dcckion~ ;lnd xtions that ccntercd on the hloch gr;mt progr;lm ilrc dcscrihed. Gener;ll ;md spccillc imprekon~ of the impact of Chapter 2. h;wd on ;,n in-depth study 01 nine public xhool districts ;IINI l’our non-public schools. compriac the m;ljor portion or the ;Irticlc.
INTRODUCTION
The
states
allocate DESPI-~I: its traditional and
1070s became
education. federal
At the elementary
expenditures
to
force
the
school
silent
also directed
IYhOs
in American
and secondary
in IYhO
expenditures. the
should a
who argued
that the federal
its
resources
limited
Representatives
levels.
increase and a
banker.
localities
On the other side stood
school
the
rose from $642 million
play
government
in public
during
in 10X0. a ‘I-fold
slice of all public
content
role
government a significant
to over $ I4 billion 743%
junior
the federal
finance,
and
out -
with
government and
Not
how
to
broad array of persons government
achieve
of special
interest
much justification
-
should use
national
goals.
groups
pointed
that
the federal
economically
disadvantaged
If states were
as many
of
the
free to spend federal
how schools should spend
money
Thus was horn one of the
orities would suffer. Additionally,
many members
threat educational debates of the 1970s - how much C control should be maintained at the federal level and
Congress believed
government
maintain
control
how
recipients
will spend federal
the federal
contribution.
much
discretion
local agencies? regdated
should
Should
there
categorical
grants
remain
in state
be narrow. or
and
carefully
broadly
The
defined
regulations
practitioners
stringent.
paperwork. of state argued.
To
them. required
and ignored
and
local
should arrke
many
who argued
are an unwarranted
decision-making. needlessly
wish.
over
1982-1083
impact
amounts of
\vith
Federal
as few
monq.
children
the!
how
the
into
Are
of
must
what
ways
28 separate
What Were
block
the off’?
has the
schools Has
of
Reagan’s categ-
grant
Consolidation
IYtil.
or worse
pri-
the resolution
a single
legislation?
realized’? better
saw
Education of
in
in President
to consolidate
Act
of that
and
federal
funds.
school year
programs 7 of
arguments
and other
at least in part.
Improvement
were
diverse needs and strengths
districts.
aid
Chapter
into local
regulations
inordinate
orical
that federal
intrusion the
state and
these
that the federal
successful efforts
On one side of the issue stood local district
as they
this debate.
block grants?
to
respects the needs of the educationally
states do not.
federal
decide
the money.
and
heen
the
supporters’ and
it made
school ;I
gre;tt
difference?
strings as possible.
This
181
article.
drawn
from
two
more
detitiled
reports
(Kearney
1983.
1984).
some of these questions
the impact of the Chapter education -
attempts
by offerinp
examination
on school
and local districts
specific puidancr activities. concern
through
ever.
a close
of nine intermediate
with Chapter the first
stance on ‘nOn-l-e~uI;it(lr\.
agency. but also
districts
of the experiences
and 1983-1084,
ot
2 block grant on Michigan
on the state education
and principally
to answer
an assessment
2 during
1982-19X3
and second years of the
program.
Both
of these
to state education
neither
issue
practitioners exception.
is
There
is no question
led
to
a
relationships.
RELATIONSHIPS
that Chapter
reshuffling
of
The reshuffling
First.
there
elimination
about
strong
grew out of the prior
level established Act (ESAA)
under
if not total
sets of relationcategoric&.
The
and the federal
the Emergency
between the local districts
School
Aid
state-federal
and the state agency that
IV-C
program,
as well as the
tie that was an inherent
part of that
program.
the
Second.
Chapter
2 generally
new relationships
and federal
has not resulted
among
levels. If anything.
the local.
Chapter
the bare minimums
ister the program.
This
As far as Chapter Administration
is particularly
true in terms
with the federal level.
2 is concerned.
IYXO Kepublican
deregulation
it appears that the in achiev-
in the education plank
Party
Platform.
by the Federal
namely.
Government
of
public education.” Third,
there
Michigan
is some evidence that Chapter
or.
more
mecliatc district gaff
leverage
to
titioncrs
of
in changed properly.
relationships.
convince the
local
viability
Tl11\ rc\huffling and fccleral
local-local
Intermediate
:~tlvent
of two
overall
programmatic
clo\elv
Dcpartmcnt
school
of
re-
1 (19X2-lYX3) of
Advisory
high
concerns
in evaluation
Committee
recommendations Committee first
school
additional
district
and usefulnrhs
of
coming
AND ACTIONS
was
the
related direction
on
districts
funds.
The
would
Education
cornins
the
25 ;I result
the of
its
Chapter and
policy
agency should monies
retain
for
Chapter that
and ‘p;~ss through’ After
mitted
himself
monies
to establish
adopted.
Chapter
2 program
debate.
administering district
The
be the
Board.
Committee’s
schools.
Board.
agency
could
he
was that
either
low achic\ ement.
the
the decision
at the local level. The
the local
was to be final issue.
spent the maiorlty
of its
of the formula
the XO”0 monies
A four-factor
the After
recommendation.
State
111.;ldclltion
or local
administer
by the
formula
to
to the local wab recom-
and adopted hv the State
to ;I membership
high cost tactor\ were incorporated -
issue dealt with
to
time. centered on the development districts.
grant proyram.
third
agency
the Committee
com-
and the State Board
for the non-public
the
3
X0”,)
of the 70”0
the intermediate
or the intermediate:
on which
$400.000
a discretionary
of whether
would
some
only the remaining
recommended.
district
the state
the State Superintendeni
the SO/l0 split.
the question
adopted
20’%, of the Chapter
to allocating
the Committee
2
the!
The second &sue
that is. whether
a full
The
intermediate
recommended
dealt with the .SO/20 split’.
The
issues.
whether
2
made
issues.
major
recommendation.
school
lack of
with
should be a11c1 the State Board of Education
inter-
from
dealt
he eligible
Committee
be used in ;llloc;iting
to the
State
four
of
by an initial
the
major
mended hv the (‘ommittec
in turn.
ibsucs:
as it
question
school
marked
for
had addressed
prac-
among the local.
has led.
was
activity
left to the partIes
and scrviccs.
of rclation4ips levels
2 in
local district-inter-
\ec C’haptcr 2 ;I\ providing
mediate clihtrict programs
U.S.
Year period
again adopted
has resulted
lationships
The
in some
both the federal and state levels,.
to the locals.
to admin-
has been quite successful
ing one of the goals identified the
relationships.
required
of local and state relationships
in
state
‘7 is marked
by an absence of intergovernmental except for
who express serious
lack of direction
the Committee’\
building
one
welcome the lack personnel
STATE LEVEL DECISIONS
grants are gone. Also gone are the ties
evolved from the Title
to
With
has taken one of three
strong ties between the local districts
state
level.
generallv
1IO\\
concern
2. in Michigan
local-state-federal
has been a demise
of the relatively
chips that
district
particular
of federal and state puidance and intervention.
from
of ..
apencv officials.
of
local districts
e\.aluation
are of substantial
at the local district
of the larger districts
forms.
regarding
issue4
exception comes from evaluation
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
has
2uidance‘ and the lack 0t L
and direction
dcscgregation
f&tot-.
three
into the formuki and \par\it)
For year 7. ;I\ far as the State !v;i\ ccmccrned it \\;I\ business
as u\u;11. No change\ wcrc
made in the
Michigan
Department
$8.405.634 7.591.277 814,357 I .890.694 1,6X1.360 209.334
Allocation Public Non-public Students Public Non-public
Source:
$X.SOS.3Y4 7.661.277 844.117 2,036,X30 1.834.685 202.145
Allocation Public Non-public Students Public Non-public
of Education
(IWO%) (88.9%) ( 11. lo/,)
(57.7’V”)
(9O.I%) (9.9%)
( IWO’%,)
(X3”/,,)
Membership
Table
$2.747.789 2.455.396 292,393 527.787 460.254 67.533
(18.9%)
(17.6”4,)
I%-I984
lY82-lY83
(17.7X)
$2.498.278 (17. I”/“) 2.222.188 276.090 374.63 I 327.317 47.314
$2.586.526 2.281.659 304.866 412.939 364.267 48.672
Desegregation
state totals.
I Y8?- I 9x.3
2 allocations:
Achievement
Chapter
$2.562.878 2.27 I 524 29 I.354 605.588 533.421 72.167
Records
I. EClA
(6.4%)
$924.369 (6.3%) XXI .9w 42,469 426.648 403.fKx? 23.640
$938.920 HY9.930 38.990 446.169 426.929 19.240
Sparsity
and IYX3-IOX4
$11.576.070 13.150.761 I .425.309
%14.S93.719 13.114.3Yl 1.479.328
Total
(IW.O%~) (90.2%) (9.8%)
(lOO.O’%>) (XY.Y’%) (10. l?“)
184
Economics
formula
and consequently
ter 2 funds changed comparison
of
Michigan Table of
from
year
distributive
in years
which
agency,
tinued
the
effects
or
the
the in
The
con-
intermediates
those 22 intermediates educational
media
another
allocated
which served also as regional
ha\,e remained
2.
approximateI! I ). In both
hO”,> of the funds were
the membership
of low achievement
factor:
the high-
and desegregation
for .?J’,i, o f the distribution
public iector’s five-fold
centers.
-
for the remaining
17”<) each:
h”,~. The
no,n;I
share was Y- 10”;, in both years -
increase
from
prc-Chapter
3 day,.
Year
3
will be no different. The
GENERAL
under
cost factors
fact.
with Chapter
the same from year I to year 2 (see Table
sparsitv accounted
IO’!:, for
an ‘rcccpted
becoming
The amounts received
accounted
to receive the same share of the allocation
7-.?I’!& for all 57 intermediates.
for the state -
Most districts are now comfortable
years I and 2 approximately
would
non-publics
ReLliew
\ource
The question
intermediate.
for
to be left to local choice.
continued
of
1 and 7 is presented
local
program
of Chap-
1 to year 2. A
1. The X0120 split also held firm.
administer
-
the
formula
the distribution
little
of Eduwtion
IMPRESSIONS
with
state
agency
Chapter
also 15 generalI!
comfortable
2: it also is considerably
dependent
upon the ‘-0 ’ ‘!/,I funds‘ that accrue to it from Chapter Local
school
generally
district
practitioners
view the Chapter
thing, as a program that gives them
that is worthwhile,
freedom
things that otherwise or as thoroughly.
the
might
titioners would
then
is the loss of the ESAA
local
in Michigan. rate Chapter
awaited
at
school
perhaps
district
without
improvement
positions
funding
would
agency,
while
prac-
A second general
the categorical
programs
importantly,
to an absolute
federal
regulation grant.
stance
The
of any federal grant.
the
state
Generally level
it
by
responsibilities
that
perhaps
Table 2. The Michigan
is
Chapter
this is viewed
Icvelx.
with
program its newness
uw
ot
with
as a positive
mixed
officials
charged
of
the
At
review\. with
Chapter
7
to be fast becoming at both quickly
idio\yncrasles
fast being resolved
as a rclativclv
unrestricted
state
and
wearing
off.
it\
and its availability
source of funds -
;I small source for most school districts.
Subpart A Suhpnrt B Subpart
albeit
but ;I larger
C‘
State administratlon Sea cliscrction;lr) srant
an local
Y7.l’Y 3.XhY ,676 35.lY5 250.~100 4~#).000
$3.h52.000
in the
at the local level.
evaluation
7- also appears
to hold on to what it had. not
$
has led to an
program. institutionalized
to the
continues
be-
more
in the new
in the areas covered
those for
the agency
Amount
of Education’s
guidance’
met
not
from year I
allocated
Departmcnr 01 Educarlon‘\ the 3l”<, k’und\
minimum
intervention
by practitioners
particularly
program.
absence at the state and local levels presence
development
and.
Department
on ‘non-regulatory
almost complete block
of and U.S.
2. little has changed
2
As can
government
grant
block
be of some but perhaps
from the $400.000
grant
Chapter
to the state
to most local districts.
to use the 70% fund\
of federal
came a part of the block in keeping
lose
? in Michigan
success of the federal
in deregulating
it would
to year 2. Apart discretionary
To
than 70
that comes from our
of the impact of Chapter
is the unmitigated
lYX3-1981.
better
and better than
and long-
in the packaging impression
2 to support
be of great consequence
serious consequence
funds for education. examination
in
be seen from Table in
exception.
9 as a much-needed
on Chapter
positions in the agency in IYXZ-IYX3 60
not get done as quickly
funds had not been included
grant.
2. It drew
to do some
The single ‘fly in the ointment’.
If the ESAA
block
Michigan
as a program
and flexibility
least for the urban districts. funds.
in
2 block grant as a good
Totals
to move
out in any different
staffing and programming indeed
have become
From and.
the point
to a much
practitioners. still small The
more
limited
the Chapter
million.
funds
policy-makers
extent.
2 program
Neither while
some
local is
nor the
a substantial
amount
of
a relatively to the total
of money when compared
state budget or even to the education IYK-lY8-l
monies
portion
the Governor
of the
and
little
apparent to
the
of Title of
fiscal strain.
this
pattern
fiscal
llowevcr.
was
seen
Asime
the
among
non-publics
in Chapter in
2 monies does not make an appreciable a $10
Commission (ACIR)
billion on
budget.
As
an
impression
with local public deal of careful
Intergovernmental
we
computers.
Relations
funds.
study suggests. a block grant is not going to
be of consequence dollars
are
national
.. .
substantial
expenditures.
same area. from
unless the
the
Chapter
amount
relative
total
federal
and to categorical particular
block
of federal to
programs
part
in the
excluded
but
in Michigan
that
thought
that If
visiting
funded
the district’s
local
result
be looking more
as
source
on it less
-
albeit
money perhaps
a short-term
as
somewhat
a relatively
It represents that
permits
they
windfall stable
minor
one
them
to do some
not have
done
and
districts
for
most
sum of
things
that
otherwise
or.
would not have done as quiclily
the same lev,el. This became
a bit more
or at
evident
in
year 2. It appears that there has been a minor shift in expenditure visited.
While
substantial 2
amon,.0 some of the districts we I saw these
of their
previously
is seeing
‘durable monies
vear
parts
expenditures year
patterns
goods’
types
penditures
staff.
of
IV-B.
but
3
staff develop-
and materials rather
that
which.
Elementary
(ESEA).
are pervasive.
3 ‘works’ _
with
and
This.
and
is that there is in
the
expertise.
interesting
the instrument
practitioners and
skilled
Education What
the federal
in planning. Are
but rather
had been selected the
categorical a cadre
project
we
as
government’s
20 _ vears produce
evaluation’!
Act would
if the block grant
goals’? Did
policy
of
the lY6S passage of
conjecture.
approach
of the past
array
that sprang
conjecture.
to achieve
education
approach
massive
programs
now
of
manage-
reaping
the
benefits‘? funded
not narrowly
under
focused.
Chapter
Block
a broad
array
Arbor’s
hiring of a facilitator
teacher
in-service
part-time
program:
of a mathematics
2 in year 2 are
grant funds are being of activities:
Ann
to help implement Ludington’s teacher
its
assignment
to provide
in-
service training to its teachers in the use of the micro-
ex-
computer
as a classroom
instructional
the
Harbor’s
hiring
minimal
districts are pickin, (7 up the slack; caused bv the loss
One
suggested.
is largely
have been our experience
ment
well-
funds.
of talent.
Secondary
of course.
than the categorical lY6S
7
were
that was fairly
own general
up during the 20 years following the
micro-
Chapter
for the most part. are
a ‘bank’
experiences
used to support
from
Chapter
buv
the purchases
or plan
and state categorical
Activities
to
and the like. It is not
equipment
l1av.e dropped.
Title away
of expenditures. toward
allocate
2 allocations
shifting
impro\~ements
that the instructional
districts
cov,ered under
a gradual
are going more
ment. curricular
Chapter
to with
and the like that has been built up as a
nevertheless
funding
a ‘no strings attached’
would
more probably.
are much more
2 in year 2. They seem to
continuing.
;I
districts.
local districts
with Chapter
out them
did.
WK
the nine which
well-developed
strategies
federal As we note above.
in
implemented from
has gone into
one exception.
Micro-computers
as components
know-how
comfortable
rushed
strategy
laid out.
is that a good
among
bought
that one reason Chapter
IMPRESSIONS
By
one gets from
and planning
had
they
of an overall
most
put it.
things.”
might argue. as some of our respondents
lY77).
in any other state.
SPECIFIC
IV-B
school practitioners
and some of them
carefully
sub-
(ACIR.
2 has yet to meet these criteria
or. for that matter.
the
outlays
grant”
visited
Advisorv
non-public
and materials.
Another
a district
dent
the
request
did not encounter
with
least
to
fiscal soundness to the state budget. The $18 million
preoccupied
plans
at
continue
2 funds. With
been
-
local administrator
the use of Chapter
have
to havjc
a notable exception
restoring
Legislature
gcncral
seem
strain
are still doing the old Title large.
own
IV-B
into local district hudgctary
evidence
schools we visited. and
by using their
purposes
equtpment
money in absolute terms. still represents
During
The
“They
in the program.
small amount budget.
IV-B
funds. with
in Michigan
the Governor
an interest
of Title
been incorporated
institution;llized.
have taken
$18
new
The 70%
of view, of state
potatoes’.
Legislature
way to fashion
priorities.
of three
work with primary
tool:
Benton
skills teachers
to
grade students having difficulties
186
Economics of Education Review
in reading and math: Grass Lake’s purchase of micro-computer hardware and software; Detroit’s support of its district-wide guidance and counseling program; East China’s establishment of a gifted and talented program for elementary school pupils; Carman-Ainsworth’s purchase of relatively expensive items to enhance its physical and biological sciences curriculum: Genesee Intermediate’s portfolio of services to local school districts; Powers Catholic High School’s program in the humanities: and Flint’s ‘rear-guard’ action to save its magnet elementary schools. These represent some of the activities being supported in the nine districts: in each district. except Detroit, there also are other activities being supported with Chapter 2 dollars. The discretionary grant program established through the use of $400.000 of the state agency’s 20% funds is viewed as offsetting. to some extent. the loss of opportunities for creativity and innovation resulting from the termination of Title IVC. While the $400.000 is significantly less than the state’s previous annual allocations under Title IV-C. there is some feeling that the potential for innovation inherent in Title IV-C has not all been lost. There are problems. Detroit, Flint and Benton Harbor are still big losers in absolute dollars because of the demise of ESAA. Detroit continues to experience ‘double jeopardy’. It loses dollars because of the demise of ESAA. but does not lose the obligation to conduct the activities the dollars supported. Detroit simply has no choice but to continue to assign its full Chapter 2 allocation to help fund the guidance and counseling component of its court-ordered desegregation plan. The coordinator of Flint’s magnet elementary school prounder a consent decree. c
staff and curriculum development activities. the non-public schools experienced few problems with Chapter 2. Participation in the block grant program appears to be going smoothlv. Three of the local districts in our sample work directly with the nonpublic schools and would have it no other way. They contend they are building on long-standing. important and positive relationships. Five of the districts leave the administration of non-public participation to the intermediate districts. They see no benefits - and no costs in terms of maintaining positive relationships - in administering the program directly. While a sizeable percentage of the non-public school children in Michigan participate in Chapter 2 activities. there is a number that do not. By and large. these children attend schools of a fundamentalist religious persuasion: the adherents are basically opposed to any governmental intervention in their schools and decline to participate in funded programs. The non-public schools in Michigan continue to be winners under Chapter 2. Their share of Chapter 2 resources continues to represent a five-fold increase over the resources available to them under the prior categoric&. This results. in part, from the non-public school becoming eligible for the same weighted allocation per pupil as the public school district in which it is located. even though the nonpublic school is not necessarily impacted by the same high cost factors. As we noted earlier. the non-publics tend to use their allocation to request ‘durable goods’ instructional equipment and materials covered previously under Title IV-B. rather than to undertake staff development. curriculum building and like activities. If there is a need that became evident. it is the need for training of staff in the non-public sector in the appropriate instructional uses of these ‘durable goods’. particularly computer hardware and software. It is not that they do not have the hardware. It is that they do not know how to use it. Educational reform is abroad in the land - and particularly in Michigan. The Michigan Commission on High Schools. the State Republican Caucus. the Speaker of the House and the State Board of Education have all issued calls for reform and three have backed up the calls with sweeping sets of recommendations. Local districts are responding to these calls. as well as to the national calls. Indeed. many of them had improvement efforts well underway prior to the issuance of the national and state
Michigan’s reports
and studies.
With
Experiences
one exception.
there has been little if any relationship reform
efforts and Chapter
exception
was
at
Chapter
2 funds
activities
designed
the
2 expenditures.
local
The lone
level
used to support
to help local districts
extent,
however.
between
intermediate
were
with the Federal Education
where
the program
state
agency
quite
effectively
respond
lines. evaluation the program
not
to
nor
influence
local
2 expenditures.
Chapter resent
a
decisions
Chapter
mechanism
to
fund
regarding
2 does not repreform
efforts
in
Generally,
local district practitioners
lack of any federal state presence.
presence.
associated
the substantial
red tape associated ally prefer
in paperwork
they
evaluators
technical
assistance
However.
state agency officials
are nowhere
Department
stance on ‘non-regulatory
guidance’.
frustration
in not being
answers
questions
to the apparent
the federal national
continuation 2 funding.
than for program considerable
Society programs the
call
evidence
of
the
and. consequently,
to
Program
at least Evaluators,
sons. probahlq
Lyndon
Robert
the
to a Great
Johnson and
Kennedy
the efficacy
block grant approach
of
of those
for
hard
programs.
from a categorical
to
a
may be the demise of program as
we
currently
generally
being
have contemplated
view
that
astute
per-
the possibilities
of such an outcome. j’st.
even though
the evaluators
of the
short,
the
from both the local districts’ perhaps
question
and. to a lesser
a general
impression
of ends.
For
of means the
local
as well as for many of the state agency
the packaging
of federal
with questions
aid rather
from
concern
mechanisms
the
ultimate
policy
aid -
is more
with
the
means.
being
interest,
served
by
a legitimate the
of
In effect. i.e.
the
a goal. than with
the goal itself. i.e. the question of whether national
a sort
questions
role should be and why.
being used to achieve
about
than questions
about the purposes and goals of federal
prior
there is a national
categorical.
Perhaps one should not be surprised at this. Perhaps questions and
about
only
national
can
national be
goals are best addressed.
addressed
effectively.
at
the
level by the Congress.
Acknowledgements -
evaluators
evaluation.
is a product
One result of the movement
function.
to support
of President
Senator
to judge
evaluation.
where little if
by concerns for self survival
survival.
extent.
at
that this
by the Congress of Chapter
may be more motivated
the
practitioner.
purpose
as a lack of
One might argue that program
In
2 center more on the question
than
was viewed
will be available
termination
fiscal
evaluators.
light.
about the efficacy
the
to get clear,
argue
are
locals gener-
local and state levels judgements of Chapter
what the federal
Program
The
is that at both the
legitimate
of the program
an eventual
A final impression,
They express a
will lead to a situation
any good evidence
near as
agency staff. This
as the state level.
fashion
apparently
administration
staff. there is a preoccupation
state.
and
aspects of
and timely
problems
on dead-
rather than a specific impression,
of removal
able
and other
positive
runs smoothly
in the area of evaluation.
leadership.
the local as well lack of direction
stance
a very
the
program
Information
up by telephone.
of Education’s
programmatic
they raise with federal
was particularly
of the
the
Any
the
procedures,
requirements
the state agency’s in
program
efficiently.
goes out in prompt
cleared
view
rather
With
to seek either from
sanguine about the U.S.
needed
gener-
in some
are not eager
or
where
They
and
2 funds will be spent.
of local
districts.
decisive
ally
administer
and the state agency’s viewpoints.
2. They also
with the program.
direction
certain
the
as well as the minimal
with Chapter
reduction
Chapter
exception
larger
welcome
to be left on their own to decide how and
on what their the
quickly
to
and direction,
application
districts.
program
Michigan.
welcome
local
decry the almost
guidance
and
allocations.
A Nation A/ Risk. The national and state reports did drive
administrators
appears
annual
1x7
Grant
total absence of federal
a series of to
Block
The rcscarch reported hcrcin was supported hy a grant from the National Institute ot Education (contract No. NIE 4(M)-X1-001) to E.H. White and Co. Contractors undertaking such projects under clovernment sponsorship are encouraged to express freely Z their professional judgement in the conduct of the project. Points of view) or opinions stated do not. therelore. necessarily represent official National Institute of Education or E.H. White and Co. position or policy. The author wishes to thank the manv. professional staff members of the Michigan Department of Education partlcularlv Daniel Schultz. Philin Hawkins. Patricia !Glocum. and Paul Novak - for their’gcnerous cooperation in the conduct of this study. Thanks are also due to the numerous intermediate district. local district and nonpublic school officials in Michigan who gave generously of their time and who contributed most of the information of which this article is based.
18X NOTES
REFERENCES