F EDERAL E DUCATION P OLICY U PDATE Noelle Ellerson FASFEPA May 2013

O VERVIEW ESEA: Reauthorization & Waivers Federal Funding: Sequestration, Appropriations, Fiscal Cliff & Debt Ceiling Rural Education: REAP Education Technology: E-Rate & ATTAIN School Nutrition Other

ESEA: R EAUTHORIZATIONS & W AIVERS  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 R EAUTHORIZATION : B OTH B ILLS  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 R EAUTHORIZATION :T HE D IFFERENCES  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: R EAUTHORIZATIONS & W AIVERS 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?

T ITLE I AND IDEA P ORTABILITY 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?

F UNDING 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!

T ITLE I 15% C ARRYOVER W AIVERS 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 M AP : F EDERAL R EVENUE IN L OCAL E DU B UDGETS

F UNDING Sequestration It happened! 5.1% Across the board, all K-12 programs, will impact you in 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’.

F UNDING : 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: P RESIDENT ’ S R EQUEST 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 P RESIDENT ’ S B UDGET R EQUEST New money in: STEM School Safety i3 and RttT Charter Schools, Magnet Schools and High School redesign Promise Neighborhoods 21 st Century Questionable assumptions Resolves sequester ESEA reauthorization NO funding for education technology Impact Aid CUT $66 million

R URAL E DUCATION 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

E DUCATION T ECHNOLOGY E-Rate Anti-Deficiency Act Raise the cap Reform the program: discount matrix? Eligible services? Education Technology ATTAIN Act Miller Bills

O THER  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

C ONTACT Y OUR A DVOCACY T EAM Noelle Sasha The Leading Edge Blog: Legislative Corps: Weekly Summary Advocacy Network: Monthly Advocacy Update Legislative Trends Report Policy Insider