Capitol Hill Education Update

Capitol Hill Education Update

• 1.
  FEBRUARY 19, 2014 PRESENTEDBY MICHELLE DOYLE Capitol Hill Education Update
• 2.
  Do Nothing Congress This Congress has not accomplished much  Evidence of the gridlock in DC  44 substantive laws enacted this year • Compared to average of 70 between 1999 and 2012
• 3.
  What Has BeenDone?  Appropriation of funds  Passage of ESEA in the House  Bills for ESEA reauthorization introduced in the Senate *********************************************  Extension of Waivers  New guidance on the use of federal funds of technology  Guidance on new method of counting students for Title I
• 4.
  Appropriations—A Look Back •The sequester is a group of cuts to federal spending set to take effect March 1, barring further congressional action. • The sequester was originally passed as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), better known as the debt ceiling compromise. • It was intended to serve as incentive for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka the “Supercommittee”) to come to a deal to cut $1.5 trillion over 10 years. If the committee had done so, and Congress had passed it by Dec. 23, 2011, then the sequester would have been averted.
• 5.
  Impact of Sequestration Across-the-board cut of 5.1% for Education Department programs  Cuts in each LEAs differed: • Increase in poverty = application of formula yields less than 5.1% cut • Decrease in poverty = application of formula yields more than 5.1% cut
• 6.
  Appropriators: Omnibus  TitleIA Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies: • FY 2013 $13,760,219 • FY 2014 $14,384,802 • Percentage change: + 4.539%  This change in appropriations for the 2014-15 school year nearly restores all of the funds that were lost during the 2013-14 school year due to sequestration.
• 7.
  Different Funding SourcesTitle I  Basic grants • FY 2013 $6,232,639 • FY 2014 $6,459,401 • Percentage change: + 3.638%  Concentration grants: • FY 2013 $1,293,919 • FY 2014 $1,362,301 • Percentage change: + 5.285%
• 8.
  Funding Sources (cont.) Targeted grants: • FY 2013 $3,116,831 • FY 2014 $3,281,550 • Percentage change: + 5.285%  Education finance grants: • FY 2013 $3,116,831 • FY 2014 $3,281,550 • Percentage change: + 5.285%
• 9.
  Titles IIA andIII Funding  Title IIA • FY 2013 $2,337,830 • FY 2014 $2,349,830 • Percentage change: + .513%  Title III • FY 2013 $693,848 • FY 2014 $732,400 • Percentage change: + 4.259%
• 10.
  ESEA Reauthorization  Firstsigned into law January 2002 for 5 years  Renewed each year without change  Several attempts at passage • Miller proposal • Kline bill (passed House) • Harkin bill (passed out of Committtee twice) • Alexander bill
• 11.
  Highlights of Klinebill  Enhanced consultation language, goal to reach agreement, added pooling and how $$ calculated, “substantially failed” added to bypass and complaint  Calculate private school funding on state level—inform simultaneously; ombudsman  Sign off for all programs  Counseling and mentoring firmed up in Title I
• 12.
  Biggest changes  TitleI funds determined prior to any set asides • Currently 20% or more set aside for public school only purposes  Title IIA funds determined prior to other uses by LEA • Currently LEA chooses to spend IIA funds on class size reduction, teacher recruitment/retention, and professional development
• 13.
  Harkin bill  Passedthe Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP)  Did not include any changes to the private school sections
• 14.
  Alexander bill  Minorityalternative  Not considered by the Committee  Includes “fix” for Title I • Funding for private school program determined prior to any set asides by the LEA
• 15.
  Administrative Initiatives  Stateof the Union: If Congress can’t get it done, Administration will use Executive Orders  Administration has already been making changes • Waivers • Technology • Community Eligibility Option
• 16.
  Waivers  Began with2012-13 school year for two years  45 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Bureau of Indian Education submitted requests for ESEA flexibility  42 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are approved for ESEA flexibility
• 17.
  Waived Requirements Include…     AdequateYearly Progress Provision of SES Provision of public school choice transportation Schools and Districts in Need of Improvement
• 18.
  Requirements Include…     Common Coreor other acceptable standards Assessments tied to standards Priority and focus schools Reward schools
• 19.
  Renewal of Waivers2014-15  This one-year extension will allow SEAs and ED to gather additional information on successes and challenges in the implementation of reforms committed to under ESEA flexibility, in order to improve current systems and better support students and teachers.  Must amend application to address monitoring findings
• 20.
  Private School Implicationsof Waivers  Difficult to get transparency  No longer (unless in waiver app) have SES, public school choice, SINI, DINI = less set asides  Add common core  Add priority and focus schools = set asides (in some cases)
• 21.
  ConnectED Initiative     High-speed internetto the classroom, Affordable mobile learning devices, High-quality learning content, and Support for teachers to move to digital learning within five years.
• 22.
  Updates Needed  Manyof the terms we use today to describe technologyenhanced learning did not exist when laws such ESEA and IDEA were passed (2001 and 2004)  ED: Need to clarify opportunities to use federal grant funds to support digital learning  http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2013/06/Fed eral-Funds-Tech-DC-.pdf
• 23.
  Innovative Use ofFederal Funds  Support teachers using digital learning tools (IIA and IA)  Provide online professional development (IIA)  Adopt digital competency-based professional development (IIA and IA)  Digital resources for Common Core (IIA)  Digital educational resources for English Language Learners and students with disabilities (III and IDEA)
• 24.
  Additional Ideas  Usetechnology to communicate with parents (IA, III, IDEA)  Connect teachers and STEM professionals with technology (IIA and IIB)  Participate in English Learner focused Communities of Practice (III)  Provide students with mobile learning devices (IA)  Provide assistive technology (IDEA)
• 25.
  Community Eligibility Option Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010  Goal to increase meals served  Direct certification • SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, etc.  Schools with 40% or more directly certified students are eligible  1.6 times # of directly certified = new lunch count  Serve free meals to all  All states eligible 2014-15
• 26.
  Title I Guidance www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/13-0381guidance.doc  Public and private schools eligible for using CEO • Unlikely many private schools will use the option – Need 40% directly certified – Need to participate in the lunch program – Need to provide free lunches to those not counted for reimbursement
• 27.
  Implications for PrivateSchools  CEO could lead to higher public school count • That’s the goal of the program!  Title I funding does not increase due to use of CEO  Proportional share for private school program will be less if public school count is higher
• 28.
  Bonus Topic!! NewPrivate School Statistics  Private school enrollment declined by 11 percent from 6.1 million in 2005 to 5.4 million in 2010.  About one in ten U.S. elementary and secondary school students is a private school student.  Projected private school enrollment for the next several years is estimated to vary little  The number of full-time equivalent private elementary and secondary school teachers in the fall of 2012 was estimated at 0.4 million, down from 0.5 million in 2007 (Digest of Education Statistics 2012)
• 29.
  Questions? Contact Michelleat mdoyledc@gmail.com View the recording of this webinar on Catapult’s site: www.catapultlearning.com/webinars Follow Michelle Doyle Educational Consulting on Facebook Check out Michelle’s blog at www.ask-michelle.com THANK YOU!