Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FEDERAL EDUCATION POLICY UPDATENoelle EllersonFASFEPA May 2013
OVERVIEW
ESEA: Reauthorization & Waivers Federal Funding: Sequestration,
Appropriations, Fiscal Cliff & Debt Ceiling Rural Education: REAP Education Technology: E-Rate & ATTAIN School Nutrition Other
ESEA: REAUTHORIZATIONS & WAIVERS
Reauthorization: It’s a matter of willingness vs. capacity (aka politics)
Administration that dislikes both House and Senate bill
Reality: 35 states in some phase of waiver implementation Onus is on administration and Congress to make
sure reauthorization doesn’t collide with waivers Likely we will see bills; unlikely we will see it
reauthorized
ESEA REAUTHORIZATION: BOTH BILLS Eliminate AYP, AMO,
SES, and 100% proficiency
Both return control of assessments and accountability to the states
Both maintain math and ELA testing requirements
Both continue data disaggregation
Reauthorize REAP
Promote growth models and multiple measures
Include computer adaptive assessment
Adjust 1 and 2 percent caps
Require 4 year adjusted cohort graduation rate and allow states to calculate 5 and 6 year rates
ESEA REAUTHORIZATION :THE DIFFERENCES School Improvement: House gives authority to state; Senate bill
prescribes turnaround models that must be used in bottom 5% of schools
HQT: House bill eliminates HQT; Senate bill retains it Maintenance of Effort: House bill eliminates MoE; Senate bill retains
it Comparability: House bill makes no changes; Senate proposes
changes to calculation Teacher Evaluation: House bill requires eval systems for all 50
states; Senate bill requires it only in states that pursue put of funding Funding Flexibility: House bill provides funding flexibility between
special population programs; Senate bill does not extend flexibility Class Size Reduction: House bill caps it at 10%; Senate bill makes no
change Ed Tech: House bill eliminates Ed Tech; Senate bill reauthorizes Ed
Tech program RttT and i3: Senate bill codifies RttT and i3 as law
ESEA: REAUTHORIZATIONS & WAIVERS
Waivers Administration issued waivers to 35 states Point of frustration on Capitol Hill
Direct to District Waivers? CA consortium
“trial run” idea Texas group
Role of waivers in removing pressure for Congress to act
House: Hearing tomorrow, mark up early June?
Senate: Week of June 11/25?
TITLE I AND IDEA PORTABILITY
Heard on the Romney campaign trail, reiterated by Representative Eric Cantor
Idea that these funds would follow the child to the school they attend.
Apart from usual opposition to vouchers, there are other implications: Runs against original congressional intent of Title
I Funds aimed at concentrations of students Technicalities of how this would work; and, what
would happen when (inevitably) students come back?
FUNDING
Federal Appropriations FY13 started Oct 1, 2012 Finally wrapped at the end of March Level funds education progams Includes across the board cut of 0.2 percent Does NOT repeal sequestration, meaning cut to
all federal K12 programs will be 5.23% Separate from sequester
FY14 process has started; see later slides!
TITLE I 15% CARRYOVER WAIVERS
Last month, the Dept released a letter to Chief State School Officers indicating the opportunity to purse waivers related to the 15% carryover of Title I funds
USED will allow states to apply for a blanket waiver so they can grant LEAs flexibility to carryover more than 15% of their FY12 Title I funds, in recognition of the impact of sequestration.
Specifically, it allows a waiver to be granted more than once every three years, which is the current statutory limit.
US MAP: FEDERAL REVENUE IN LOCAL EDU BUDGETS
FUNDING
Sequestration It happened! 5.1% Across the board, all K-12 programs, will impact
you in 2013-14 school year IMPACT AID is immediate Role of Sequester in pulling the level on flexibility
re: IDEA MoE Still not resolved, still opportunity to get it
‘fixed’.
FUNDING: FY14 House and Senate each passed budget
resolutions. Drastically different; we are likely on course for
another CR House
Maintains sequestration Funding levels for education are, at best, slightly
worse than sequestration Significant reliance on discretionary spending cuts
Senate Resolves sequestration, though there would still be
cuts to discretionary spending Maintains investment in education Includes$20 million for school infrastructure
FY14: PRESIDENT’S REQUEST
Dead on arrival (or, even more so than usual!)
Once again highlights education as a funding priority
Once again pushes all new dollars in to competitive programs
$1.2 billion in new funding goes to competition. Level funds Title I and IDEA, along with almost all other programs.
FY14 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET REQUEST
New money in: STEM School Safety i3 and RttT Charter Schools,
Magnet Schools and High School redesign
Promise Neighborhoods
21st Century
Questionable assumptions Resolves sequester ESEA reauthorization
NO funding for education technology
Impact Aid CUT $66 million
RURAL EDUCATION
REAP Included in base bills with all of AASA’s priorities
Adjust the sliding scale Locale Code Eligibility for both programs Switch poverty indicator to F/RLP
Use REAP to move any federal dollars identified for rural-only competition/set aside
Title I Number Weighting Concentration vs. Count
EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
E-Rate Anti-Deficiency Act Raise the cap Reform the program: discount matrix? Eligible
services? Education Technology
ATTAIN Act Miller Bills
OTHER
School Nutrition Vouchers/Charters Epinephrine Pens Early Education Perkins/Career Tech IDEA Full Funding From Sasha’s Portfolio:
Seclusion/Restraint IDEA and Due Process Bullying School Safety
CONTACT YOUR ADVOCACY TEAM
Noelle [email protected]
@Noellerson
Sasha [email protected]
@Spudelski
The Leading Edge Blog: www.aasa.org/aasablog.aspx
Legislative Corps: Weekly SummaryAdvocacy Network: Monthly Advocacy
UpdateLegislative Trends Report
Policy Insiderwww.aasa.org
