Noelle Ellerson Sasha Pudelski

◦ FCC’s October point of order adjusted $2.25 billion funding cap to inflation and added dark-fiber to the eligible services list. ◦ Continue to push for an increase for the cap, given ever increasing demand and rising costs ◦ Exemption from Anti-Deficiency Act:  Requires USAC to have enough money to pay funding commitments; without ADA, enforcement of this policy means LEAs may not receive funds, tightening budgets  We’ve been operating under a series of one-year waivers  S 297 would provide a permanent exemption

EETT/Title II Part D ◦ FY11 CR eliminates Enhancing Education Through Technology ◦ Pres. FY12 budget proposal calls for Education Technology Office in Department. ◦ Skeptical of what the office would actually mean at the local level ◦ Sen. Bingaman introduced the ATTAIN Act (S 1178), which allows for EETT-type program ($300 m trigger)

 S.567 sponsored Sen. Kent Conrad (R-ND)/ Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced in March  Bill contains the following changes ◦ Transition to new locale codes ◦ Allow districts to choose between RLIS and SRSA funding ◦ Switch the eligibility poverty measure ◦ Shift in the sliding formula from $20,000 to $25,000 and $60,000 to $80,000.

 NEW legislation introduced to create an Office of Rural Education Policy in the Department of Education.  Requires Department to establish and maintain a clearinghouse on best practices and research specific to the needs of rural schools, as well produce an annual report on the condition of rural education that would be submitted to Congress.  The office is also charged with greater coordination of federal department/agency programs that relate to rural schools.  Additionally, the legislation requires that whenever the Department of Education promulgates new rules and regulations, the Department must explicitly describe how these rules and regulations would affect rural schools and communities.

The Safe Schools Improvement Act  Requires LEAs to (1) include clear prohibitions against bullying and harassment within their discipline policies; (2) establish and monitor performance indicators for incidents of bullying and harassment; and (3) establish grievance procedures students, parents, and educators can use to redress such conduct.  SSIA would also direct LEAs to notify parents, students, and educators annually on: (1) the bullying and harassment prohibited by their discipline policies, (2) the numbers and nature of bullying and harassment incidents for each of their schools, and (3) grievance procedures for redressing such conduct.

 46 states already require schools to have bullying policies and many define bullying and cyber- bullying  Unfunded mandate  Not the most effective way for the federal government to support schools’ anti-bullying efforts  Federal overreach

 The Federal government should fund innovative programs and initiatives to prevent and respond to bullying, cyberbullying, harassment, and other school violence incidents through school- wide prevention and early intervention programs that are evidence-based and reflect cultural and linguistic competencies.  All funding for bullying prevention activities should be structured in a manner that makes resources available to all states and districts.  In addition to programs that specifically address bullying and cyberbullying awareness, prevention, and intervention, federal agencies should provide schools with the flexibility to use funds for programming in the area of social and emotional learning, student threat assessment, mental health promotion, prevention, early intervention, and School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports.  Federal programs should include funding for training school administrators, school resource officers, faculty, students, all staff in contact with the student population, and families.

 Waiting a NRPM that would rescind the parental consent regulation for Medicaid reimbursement  Efforts have begun to lobby for local MOE waiver for IDEA spending modeled on state waiver  Is your district in danger of not meeting MOE this year? Talk to me and talk about it on the Hill!

The Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA)  Introduced in both House and Senate– every Democrat on the HELP Committee is a co-sponsor  SNDA prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally- assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.  The SNDA is closely modeled after title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and provides legal recourse to redress such discrimination.  Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination  Allows an aggrieved individual to take legal action against the school district and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they prevail.  Allows the federal government to deny school districts federal funds if they are found to be in violation of any part of the legislation.

 Granting individual students a private right of action against a school system creates new costs and administrative structures and is a slower path to preventing discrimination than training or professional development.  While AASA does not take a stand on whether a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity should be protected categories under law, we are committed to providing a safe and healthy school climate where all students feel safe and able to learn.

 Noelle Ellerson,  Sasha Pudelski