Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
American Recovery
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

American Recovery

190
views

Published on

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
190
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Federal Legislative Update 2010 PSBA School Leadership Conference October 13, 2010 Hershey, Pennsylvania Reginald M. Felton Director, Federal Relations National School Boards Association
  • 2. Discussion Agenda • Federal Funding • Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) • Early Childhood Education • Child Nutrition • Education Technology • Other Issues • NSBA Resources 2
  • 3. FEDERAL FUNDING FOR K-12 PROGRAMS 3
  • 4. Fiscal Survey of the States • Among the worst fiscal periods since the Great Depression. • 34 states cut K-12 funding for FY2010. • 31 states planning additional K-12 cuts for FY2011. • Decline expected to continue through FY2010 - 2013. • Revenue needed for critical public services will be chief concern for a number of years. Source: National Association of State Budget Officers & National Governors Association 4
  • 5. Race to the Top 5 • $4.35 billion – Competitive Grants to State. • At least ½ funds for “participating” districts. • Additional funds for “involved” districts. • More directions to implement the four principles. • Phase I award (DE- $100 million and TN - $500 million). • Phase II - District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island.
  • 6. Race to the Top - FY2011 Funding • President’s Budget Request = another $1.35 billion • House Appropriations Subcommittee = $800 million • Senate Appropriations Committee = $675 million • Final FY2011 Appropriations may be confirmed by December. 6
  • 7. School Improvement Grants (SIGs) • $3.5 billion allocated to states primarily for local grants to turn around low performing schools. • LEAs must use one of four options: – The turn-around model. – Converting to a charter or using a school management organization. – Close the school and reassign students. – The transformation model. 7
  • 8. Problems with the Options • Each option involves replacing the principal and some will involve replacing staff. • The options are difficult to implement in remote/small LEAs and staffing decisions carry possible contract/legal barriers. • Research doesn’t support the four options as the best approaches—to justify being the only approaches. • No option for locally developed programs that are evidenced based that can better meet local needs than the other options. 8
  • 9. Investing In Innovation (i3) Fund • $650 million in competitive grants / 20% matching funds required from private sector. • Available directly to school districts & non-profit partners in 3 categories: – Scale up grants (up to $50 million) for programs with strong evidence of improving student achievement; – Validation grants (up to $30 million) to target existing programs with good evidence and a need to build their research base; – Development grants (up to $5 million) for new and high potential practices. 9
  • 10. i3 Application Update • Sept. 20: 49 grantees announced with confirmation of 20% matching funds. • 42 states and 2 territories. • 37% serve rural school districts. • School districts, non-profit organizations, higher education institutions. • 10 public school systems. 10
  • 11. Education Jobs Fund • Enacted August 10. • 48 states and the District of Columbia have applied for funding. • Districts may use the funds through September 30, 2012. • Ed Jobs funds must be used only for school-level employee compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as support services, necessary to: – Retain existing employees; – Recall or rehire former employees; and – Hire new employees. • LEAs decide how to use Ed Jobs funds, consistent with provisions in the Act and other applicable requirements. 11
  • 12. State Distribution of Funds • States must distribute Ed Jobs funds to LEAs on a timely basis. • State must distribute funds either: – Through the State’s primary elementary and secondary education funding formula(e) used in the SFSF program; or – On the basis of the LEAs’ relative shares of funds under Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) for the most recent fiscal year for which data are available. 12
  • 13. Jobs Bill Funding: $10B for Ed jobs; $16B for Medicaid funding. Off-Sets: 13 a) End tax credits on corporate Revenue Foreign income ($9.75B) Reduce b) Snap/Food Stamps ($11.9B) Reduce c) Medical Drugs ($2B) Reduce d) Earned Income Tax Credit ($1B) Reduce
  • 14. FY 2011 Funding NSBA Position: • NSBA urges increased funding for Title I grants and special education. Advancing student achievement and school performance through these programs will remain a top priority for school districts after the funding allocations from the economic stimulus are utilized. • Protecting investments in Title I and IDEA will help our school districts avert any funding cliffs in FY 2011 and future years. • Increases should not be at the expense of other effective programs. 14
  • 15. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) 15
  • 16. Key Reauthorization Dates • Last reauthorized as No Child Left Behind (January 2001). • Scheduled to be reauthorized at end of 2008-2009 school year. • Possible date for reauthorization: 2011. 16
  • 17. Purpose Major federal legislation to support states and local school districts. • Funding authorization • Policy • Accountability • Related issues 17
  • 18. Recent Actions • Congressional leadership commitment (February 2010). • NSBA formal recommendations (March 2010). • Administration “Blueprint” (March 2010). • Revised joint statement (March 2010). • Senate and House hearings (March-June 2010). 18
  • 19. Selected NSBA Recommendations for ESEA • Funding Design – Incentives/rewards vs. mandates and conditions for non-program purposes (e.g. adoption of common standards within Title I). – Formula grants v. competitive grants. – Support for inter-agency collaboration. • Local Flexibility – Local program design/including incentives. – Staffing issues. 19
  • 20. NSBA Recommendations for ESEA: Standards and Assessments • Funding for states to develop standards and assessments including voluntary projects with other states. • Funding to support local capacity to meet new standards and assessments (e.g. professional development and new course materials). 20
  • 21. NSBA Recommendations for ESEA: Accountability • Focus on student growth. • Multiple assessments including classroom observation. • Targeted interventions providing multi-year programming and targets. 21
  • 22. NSBA Response to Blueprint • Major Improvements Over Current Law –Comprehensive strategy. –Eliminates 2014 date for 100% of students scoring proficient. –Accountability uses growth. –Eliminates labels and focuses on the lowest performing schools. –No required set-aside for choice/supplemental services. 22
  • 23. NSBA Response to Blueprint • NSBA’s Major Objections – Conditions Title I funding to adoption of voluntary state standards. – Interventions/Models for lowest performing schools dilutes local decision-making/governance. – Emphasis on competitive grants funding ignores need for formula grant increases. – Inadequate recognition for small/rural school districts. 23
  • 24. NSBA Response to Blueprint • NSBA’s Major Objections – Replaces Title I formula-based funding with competitive grants. – Conditions Title I (or any major federal funding) with adoption of state-led common core standards. – Mandates models not evidence-based. – Expands on charter schools. – Continues overemphasis on standardized tests. 24
  • 25. NSBA Response to Blueprint 25 • More decision making assumed at federal level to direct the states—including competitive grants. • More decision making in ED compared to Congress—delegated authority. • More responsibility/direction for states to carry out federal policy at local level. • Federal decisions are largely about elements of the delivery system not educational content or instruction.
  • 26. Outlook? 26
  • 27. CHILD NUTRITION ACT REAUTHORIZATION 27
  • 28. Child Nutrition Reauthorization Current authorization expires on September 30, 2010 Key issues National Standards: At a minimum, would apply to all food sold in school throughout the school day, including a la carte lines, vending machines & fundraisers. Funding: Increase ranges from $4.5 billion over 10 years in Senate bill to $8 billion in House bill. Paid meal pricing – regulates what schools can charge for non-subsidized school lunches. Reimbursement: 6 cent increase per school lunch that meets updated nutrition requirements (not adequate). 28
  • 29. Child Nutrition • The Senate Agriculture Committee approved a bill in March 2010: the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (S. 3307). • The House Education and Labor Committee introduced & conducted a hearing on a bill – the Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act (H.R. 5504). • Further legislative activity planned for both bills. • NSBA is lobbying for funding levels that meet the cost of implementing federal standards/requirements as well as more local flexibility. 29
  • 30. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (S. 3307) • Passed by unanimous consent. (Aug. 5) • Authorizes $4.5B in new funding. • 50% of off-set from Student Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – (An increase under AARP) • SNAP reduction in 2013. 30
  • 31. Child Nutrition Act Reauthorization Congressional context • NSBA has testified three times on behalf of the position adopted in the 2010 Delegate Assembly. • Senate Agriculture Committee mark-up of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids (HHFK) Act of 2010. Administration context • Overall interest in health, fitness & nutrition. • First Lady’s Let’s Move anti- childhood obesity initiative. – NSBA is an organizational partner. • USDA Healthier US School Challenge. 31
  • 32. Child Nutrition Act 32 • All foods outside school meal programs, on school campus, any time during school day, school-sponsored events Standards • Senate: $4.5 billion over 10 years • House: $8 billion Funding (Inadequate) • 6 cent increase per school lunch (actual cost 11-12 cents)Reimbursement • Regulated by FedsMeal Pricing
  • 33. EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 33
  • 34. Education Technology • E-Rate – The Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund, commonly known as “E-Rate,” provides discounts to assist most schools and libraries in the United States to obtain affordable telecommunications and Internet access. • Status – NSBA helped secure an extension of administrative relief from the Anti-Deficiency Act for E-Rate Internet connection discounts for high-need schools and libraries. The current extension expires September 30, 2010. 34
  • 35. Education Technology National Broadband Plan – NSBA recommendations for E-Rate were included in the Federal Communications Commission Plan for nationwide broadband deployment, including increasing the availability of E-Rate discounts. 35
  • 36. National Broadband Plan: E-Rate The FCC issued a final rule in September 2010 to: • Let schools buy dark fiber (unused fiber already in place) to gain access to high bandwidth Internet at competitive rate. • Permanently authorize 'school spots' so communities can use school wireless after hours. • Include for a pilot program for off-campus wireless, the chairman's office said Monday. • Raise the cap on E-Rate to account for inflation. • Streamline the E-Rate application process for schools & libraries. 36
  • 37. OTHER ISSUES 37
  • 38. Restraints & Seclusion • Legislation (H.R. 4247 – passed, S. 2860 – pending) – Prevention of inappropriate use. – Primary focus on safety. – Targeted to general and special education. – Imminent danger/physical injury support exception. – Trained personnel. – State data collection and reporting. • Pending Issues – Reference in IEPs, behavioral plans. – Waivers for states with existing laws. 38
  • 39. Vouchers for Military Families • Legislation: FY2011 Defense Authorization Act (S. 3454) pending full Senate action. • Vouchers up to $7,500 to families with children with special needs to attend private schools. • NSBA Position – Opposed – Current law and compact provides for support. – Private schools can restrict enrollment. – Private schools not required to meet teacher standards. • Alternatives – Expansion of IDEA parent centers. – Purchase supplemental services from public schools. 39
  • 40. Interstate Military Compact • 35 states enacted Compact. • Aimed at easing transition for military children. • Areas covered: graduation requirements, course sequence, immunization, enrollment , placement, etc. • Overseen by a Commission. • NSBA position: states have final decisions for unresolved issues and full authority on education policy; compact vs. legislation.
  • 41. Reginald M. Felton Director, Federal Relations 703.838.6782 rfelton@nsba.org www.nsba.org/advocacy