Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

OAASFEP OCTOBER 2014 WHAT’S GOING ON? Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 1.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "OAASFEP OCTOBER 2014 WHAT’S GOING ON? Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 OAASFEP OCTOBER 2014 WHAT’S GOING ON? Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 1

2  Congress  Department of Education  Federal Communications Commission  Office of Management and Budget 2

3 CONGRESS  Not much  Election Day – November 4 th  Total days in session after summer recess – 12  Days in Session October 1 to November 4 2 3


5 OVERALL LEGISLATIVE PICTURE 5 Fiscal issues Everything else No time/energy for substantive policy debate

6 WHY ISN’T EDUCATION A PRIORITY? Limited opportunities to move legislation Limited time left on legislative calendar High degree of partisanship High number of “must-act” issues and priorities Constant crisis situation Significant possibility of primary challenges, electoral turnover Education not a deciding issue for most voters Bottom line: need to take significant, fast action on issues that have maximum press and electoral impact 6

7 WIA: THE RARE SUCCESS Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (H.R. 803) passed Congress on July 9 th, 2014 Product of “pre-conference” discussion among bipartisan group of lawmakers “Streamlines” WIA by eliminating some programs (but maintains major targeted programs) Makes some changes to makeup of State, local WIBs (to increase role of businesses/employers) Expands scope of AEFLA program Sets new performance metrics for all programs 7

8 EARLY EDUCATION Administration plan announced in President’s State of the Union address $77 billion in subsidized universal pre-K for low/middle- income families over next decade Federal share paid for through increase in tobacco taxes (maybe) States receive funding for adopting certain quality standards Including class size, education level and pay of instructors, State-level inspections and audits, etc. Federal share drops from 90% to 25% over 10-year period 8

9 EARLY EDUCATION Strong Start for America’s Children Act (S. 1697) Focus on universal, voluntary pre-K for low-income three and four-year-olds Funds would be disbursed based on a state’s share of four- year olds living at or below 200% of the poverty line. Requires set staff qualifications, class size requirements, salaries, early learning and development standards, longitudinal data systems No action to date Questions remain about federal role, how to offset cost 9

10 CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Bipartisan bill (S. 1086) passed in Senate on March 13, 2014 would: Require States to conduct background checks of employees, including checking state criminal and sex-offender registries and state-based abuse and neglect registries Require States to set aside more money to boost program quality (increasing from 4 percent of total now to 10 percent by 2018) Ensure that program staff are trained in basic safety measures like CPR Increased State monitoring and oversight responsibilities Require States to check family eligibility for subsidies no more than once a year (focus on continuity of child care) No action to date in House Opposition from some organizations Increased costs to States/providers with no additional federal funding 10

11 IDEA No action to date Focus is on “full funding” of existing federal obligation “Full funding” = 40% of excess cost of educating students with disabilities Letters in House and Senate to appropriations Committees asking for increased IDEA formula funding Wide support from Democrats Some support from moderate Republicans Unlikely to move before ESEA 11

12 CHARTER SCHOOLS Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act (H.R. 10) Would combine two existing federal programs (Charter School Grant Program and Charter School Credit Enhancement Program) 15% can be reserved by ED for charter school financing 10% can be reserved by ED for “national activities” Including disseminating best practices Priority to States with more open charter laws Changes to lotteries: Would allow grants to go to schools that use weighted lotteries that “give slightly better chances for admission to …educationally disadvantaged students” (if permitted by State) Permits students to go from one charter to another without having to re- enter lottery Authorizes an additional $50 million annually for the Charter Schools Program (CSP) Passed House in May 2014 (awaiting action in Senate) 12

13 ESEA REAUTHORIZATION: SENATE  Strengthening America’s Schools Act of 2013 (S. 1094) passed out of Committee on party line vote June 12 th  Based largely on waivers, October 2011 ESEA legislation  Requires States to adopt standards, assessments, performance targets  Sets “n-size” at 15 students  Increased data/reporting requirements (cross-tabulation)  Interventions in priority/focus schools  Adds personnel expenditures to comparability calculation  States must implement teacher/principal evaluations  Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) says he hopes to get it to the floor, but prospects still murky 13

14 ESEA REAUTHORIZATION: HOUSE Student Success Act in (H.R. 5) passed House of Representatives on July 19 th, 2013 Similar to bills passed in 112 th Congress Eliminates AYP, HQT requirements States would get to set own performance targets, little federal guidance Teacher/principal evaluations required (with student achievement as a significant factor) Overall smaller federal role 14

15 ESEA Reauthorization: Overall Few similarities between bills mean conference/agreement unlikely Consensus: reauthorization will wait until 2015 or later This means starting from scratch in January 2015 Impact of ESEA waivers still TBD give relieve to some districts/States (unless don’t qualify/waiver revoked) causes conflict with Congress (and States, as compliance issues, high-risk, revocations continue) promotes administration priorities (but Common Core, testing coming under fire) 15

16 Department of Education: Waivers 16

17 WAIVER STATES  41 States, the District of Columbia, and California’s CORE districts  Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin 17

18 WAIVERS PENDING  Wyoming 18

19 WAIVERS WITHDRAWN & REJECTED  Rejected:  California  Iowa  Withdrawn:  North Dakota  Vermont 19

20 “HIGH RISK” & REVOKED WAIVERS  “High Risk”:  Oregon, August 2013  Arizona, December 2013  California’s CORE districts, September 2014  Revoked:  Washington, April 2014  Failed to include student achievement in teacher and principal evaluations  Oklahoma, August 2014  Repealed Common Core and failed to replace it with equally rigorous standards

21 NON-WAIVER STATES  Montana & Nebraska have not applied for a waiver

22 WAIVER RENEWAL  35 States’ waivers will expire this summer  31 have submitted renewal requests so far  23 States, the District of Columbia, and California’s CORE districts have been granted waiver extensions  Arkansas  Colorado  Connecticut  Delaware  Florida  Georgia  Idaho  Indiana  Kansas  Kentucky  Maryland  Michigan  Minnesota  Mississippi  Nevada  New York  North Carolina  North Dakota  Ohio  South Carolina  Tennessee  Virginia  Wisconsin

23 SECRETARY DUNCAN  2014 – 2015 transition year – teacher accountability  New 2015 -2016 deadline teacher accountability – student test scores  See Deborah Delisle Letter  letters/cssoltr8212014.html letters/cssoltr8212014.html 23

24 TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY  17 States and the District of Columbia will likely request the test score flexibility  Alabama  Arkansas  Connecticut  Delaware  Georgia  Idaho  Kansas  Maryland  Michigan 24  Mississippi  Missouri  Ohio  Oregon  Rhode Island  South Carolina  South Dakota  Utah

25 TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY  12 States are not likely request the test score flexibility  Arizona  Colorado  Florida  Kentucky  Massachusetts  Minnesota  Hawaii, Indiana, and Wisconsin are unsure  West Virginia, Maine, and New Hampshire received their waivers too late to be eligible for the flexibility 25  New Mexico  New York  North Carolina  Pennsylvania  Tennessee  Virginia

26 GAO STUDY ON WAIVERS  Senator Lamar Alexander (R – TN)  Representative John Kline (R – MN)  August 12, 2014 – requested study on  ED process  Issues for states  Accountability  4c-21e6-4f1a-9602-ff4e361ac2dc&groups=Ranking 4c-21e6-4f1a-9602-ff4e361ac2dc&groups=Ranking 26


28 REPEALED COMMON CORE  Indiana (April)  Implemented standards very similar to Common Core  Oklahoma (June)  Reverted to old standards  South Carolina (May)  Using Common Core for 2014-2015  Drawing up new standards for 2015-2016


30 RECONSIDERING COMMON CORE  Missouri (July)  Using Common Core for at least two years  Reviewing and potentially revising for 2016-2017  North Carolina (July)  Created a commission to review Common Core and make recommendations for improvement  Common Core will be used at least for 2014-2015

31 GROWING PRESSURE TO REPEAL  Louisiana  Gov. Bobby Jindal wants Common Core repealed  Jindal had suspended the use of PARCC exams, saying the Superintendent John White and the State board did not properly follow contracting procedures  However, a judge lifted Jindal’s PARCC suspension  Jindal has now filed a lawsuit against ED and Sec. Duncan, claiming that offering ESEA waivers and Race to the Top went beyond Duncan’s legal authority and coerced States into adopting Common Core  New Jersey  Gov. Chris Christie has created a commission to review the effectiveness of Common Core assessments, and the assessments now have less importance in teacher evaluations

32 GROWING PRESSURE TO REPEAL  New York  More than 62,000 residents have signed on to an effort to create a new "Stop Common Core" ballot line to allow voters to voice their concerns about the state's new education standards  Ohio  Ohio legislature has begun holding hearings on Common Core repeal bill 32

33 GROWING PRESSURE TO REPEAL  Wisconsin  Gov. Scott Walker called for the legislature to repeal Common Core in 2015  Utah  Gov. Gary Herbert is having the state attorney general review the standards’ connections to the federal government 33

34 PDK GALLUP POLL ON EDUCATION HTTP://PDKINTL.ORG/NOINDEX/PDK_POLL_46.PDF HTTP://PDKINTL.ORG/NOINDEX/PDK_POLL_46.PDF  60% American oppose Common Core – too restrictive for teachers 34


36 ADMINISTRATION WEIGHS IN ON DISPARATE DISCIPLINE Joint ED DOJ Letter, January 8, 2014  Discipline: Administration encourages policies that are fair and avoid disparate impact Impact high rates of suspension / expulsion Disparate impact on minority students 36

37 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR) – ED – CATHERINE LHAMON  ED aggressively focused on reducing disparaties  Past 5 years 1,500 complaints to OCR 37

38 NEW GUIDANCE ON ELL SWDs  July 18, 2014  Cover letter: sdcltrs/cover-letter-els-w-disabilities-7-18- 2014.pdf sdcltrs/cover-letter-els-w-disabilities-7-18- 2014.pdf  Q&A: sdcltrs/q-and-a-on-elp-swd.pdf sdcltrs/q-and-a-on-elp-swd.pdf 38

39 REQUIREMENTS:  IDEA, SWDs included in all statewide assessments  Titles I, and III all ELL students tested for English proficiency 39

40 HOW DO ELL SWDs PARTICIPATE? a) Regular, no accommodation b) Regular with accommodation c) Alternate Determination made by IEP team 40

41 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, 2010 COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY OPTION 41

42 COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY OPTION (CEP)  Eligible schools – Free Meals – All students  Available to all LEAs 2014-2015 with eligible schools 42

43 COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY OPTION  Eligible School 1. 40% students certified-free meals through means other than household application SNAP / TANF 43

44 COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY OPTION 2. Multiplier (initially 1.6) 3. Conduct certification at least once every four years (more frequently optional) 4. Reimbursement based on resulting number 44

45 COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY OPTION  Title I Implications:  Disaggregation: economically disadvantaged All students  Eligibility based on poverty: All students 45

46 COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY OPTION  Title I Implications  School Eligibility and Rank and Serve Use number from multiplier 46

47 USDA GUIDANCE  February 25, 2014  -LEA may include all or some schools  provision-evaluation provision-evaluation  -Eligibility may be school x school –  -Group or  -Aggregate of total 47

48  No Rounding!!!  …39.98% DOES NOT qualify  (AG actually says this) 48

49 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS POLICY  Beginning January 2015 application for 2015 -2016  Use CEP rate to calculate E-Rate discount rate 49

50 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET  The Omni Circular is Here! 50

51 KEY DATES:  Feb 1, 2013NPRM  Dec 19, 2013Final  Dec 26, 2013Federal Register  April 2014New OMB Compliance Supplement  June 26, 2014ED Draft EDGAR Changes  Dec 26, 2014Final EDGAR Published 51

52 DATE OF APPLICABILITY OF REVISED RULES  All additions, after December 26, 2014  All new grants after December 26,2014 ? ? ? 52

53 WHAT IS COVERED?  A-102 – Administrative Rules State / Local – Part 80 – EDGAR  A-110 – Administrative Rules Postsecondary – Part 74 – EDGAR  A-87 – Cost Rules – State / Local  A-21 – Cost Rules – Rules – Postsecondary  A-122 – Cost Rules – Nonprofit  A-133 – Audit Rules (>$750,000) 53

54 WHO IS COVERED?  All “nonfederal entities” expending federal awards 54

55 REASONS FOR THE CHANGE? 1. Simplicity 2. Consistency 3. Obama Executive Order on Regulatory Review  Increase Efficiency  Strengthen Oversight 55

56 2 CFR Part 200 56 STRUCTURE OF OMNI-CIRCULAR (P. 78608)

57 (P. 78608) 57  Subpart A – Definitions  Subpart B – General Provisions  Subpart C – Pre Award Requirements  Subpart D – Post Award Requirements  Subpart E – Cost Principles  Subpart F – Audit Requirements


59 DISCLAIMER This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. Attendance at the presentation or later review of these printed materials does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances. 59

Download ppt "OAASFEP OCTOBER 2014 WHAT’S GOING ON? Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 1."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google