Survival of the Fittest Status of Federal Education Legislation Julia Martin, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Spring Forum 2015

ESEA Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC2

ESEA Progress  For House/Senate Committees, ESEA is reauthorization priority #1  Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)  Discussion draft released, hearings began mid-January  Alexander-Murray bill released in early April, markup in mid- April  House Committee on Education and the Workforce  Student Success Act (H.R. 5) introduced early February, approved by Committee February 11 th  No hearings – building on debate in 113 th Congress Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC3

Problems on House Floor  Set for vote last week of February, but bill was pulled from schedule before final vote  Vote scheduled for same day as Homeland Security funding bill  Objections from conservative Republican groups:  Not enough of a departure from NCLB  Too tolerant of Common Core  Not enough flexibility for States/districts  too prescriptive  Did not allow Title I portability funds to be used at private schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 4

Remaining Hurdles  Busy House/Senate schedule  Other legislative priorities  Democratic opposition  From within Congress and from President/administration  Concerns about “walking back” accountability/ civil rights  Concerns about funding/portability  Republican opposition  Opposition from conservative Reps., action groups Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 5

Where to go from here?  Two choices (assuming Senate Passes bill):  House passes Senate bill (or vice versa)  Then Senate passes revised version with any House amendments, sends to President for signature  House and Senate meet in “conference” to work out differences between bills  Final compromise legislation must be passed by House and Senate, then sent to President for signature  Both options complicated by House problems in passing bill Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC6

Likely Contents of ESEA Reauthorization  What’s Definitely Out  AYP  Instead: States design and implement plans for intervention and improvement  Requirement to adopt specific college- and career- ready standards  Instead: leaves standards and assessments up to States  Race to the Top (and i3)  Instead: focus on formula funding (and budget-cutting)  Teacher evaluations, HQT  Instead: focus on State licensure/training/PD Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 7

Likely Contents of ESEA Reauthorization  What’s Definitely In  Title I structure, formula  Charter school grants  Focus on States with laws more open to charters  Limitation on Secretarial waiver, decision- making authority  Funding flexibility between Titles II and IV  Consolidation of some programs/titles  Supplement, not supplant (but some changes)  Maintenance of effort (may change?) Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 8

ESEA Flashpoints  Appropriations  House bill, Senate discussion draft would limit total appropriations to FY 2015 levels  Senate bill as introduced allows “such sums” as necessary  White House veto threat mentioned limitation on funding as negative  Assessments  Senate draft included potential for allowing grade-span assessments  Pressure from parent and other advocacy groups to lessen testing  White House pushback, support from Democratic and Republican leadership for current requirement  accountability 9

ESEA Flashpoints  Title I Portability  House bill would allow States to set up systems where Title I funding follows low- income student to school of their choice  White House, left-leaning advocacy groups highly critical  In House floor debate, conservatives ask for even more on portability (funding for private schools)  Senate bill as introduced has no portability  Introduced as amendment Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 10