American Recovery

331 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
331
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

American Recovery

  1. 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. 2. Discussion Agenda • Federal Funding • Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) • Early Childhood Education • Child Nutrition • Education Technology • Other Issues • NSBA Resources 2
  3. 3. FEDERAL FUNDING FOR K-12 PROGRAMS 3
  4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 15. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) 15
  16. 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. 17. Purpose Major federal legislation to support states and local school districts. • Funding authorization • Policy • Accountability • Related issues 17
  18. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 26. Outlook? 26
  27. 27. CHILD NUTRITION ACT REAUTHORIZATION 27
  28. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 33. EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 33
  34. 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. 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. 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. 37. OTHER ISSUES 37
  38. 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. 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. 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. 41. Reginald M. Felton Director, Federal Relations 703.838.6782 rfelton@nsba.org www.nsba.org/advocacy

×