LEGISLATIVE UPDATE ON APPROPRIATIONS-June 30, 2008
During the last week of
June the Senate Appropriations Committee passed its version of the FY09
Labor/HHS/Education bill by a bipartisan vote of 26-3. The committee
changed few things in the original bill. It did increase charter school
funds by $5 million and included a potential veto inducing measure, which
would negate a presidential directive that places restrictions on the SCHIP
program. Chairman Byrd announced his intention of passing all 12 spending
measures before the end of July, including the Interior bill, which caused a
huge disruption in the House comittee last week. The chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee, David Obey (D-WI), originally planned to markup
three more appropriations bills the week following July recess, but last
week’s theatrics in the Labor/HHS/ED markup has put these plans on hold.
Comments from Mark
Laisch, Senate Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, on Senate FY 09
appropriations bill.
Laisch declared the
legislation would increase total funding by $24 billion over last year, but
pointed out the House allocation is $1.75 billion more than the Senate’s.
Senators Harkin (D-IA) and Specter(R-PA), chairman and ranking minority
member, respectively, both agreed it’s the best bill they could produce
considering the allocation.
Laisch detailed the bill’s
increases for Title I, School Improvement, IDEA, and Pell Grants. He also
mentioned Senator Harkin’s efforts to fund additional teacher quality
initiatives and the Senate’s elimination of the Reading First program.
Laisch stated that after accounting for mandatory increases, and restoring
the President’s budget cuts, including $3.3 billion in education programs,
the subcommittee really had only $2 billion in discretionary funds to
allocate to other programs. He added the rising costs of Medicare and
Social Security will continue to put a squeeze on new funding.
Regarding the fate of the
bill, Laisch said it had bipartisan support in committee, but strongly
warned that the Senate will not move on spending measures if the House does
not complete its work on appropriations. He also said Senator Harkin and
Majority Leader Reid both have expressed their desire to pass the bill to
reflect the stark contrasts of the Democrats’ domestic spending priorities
with the Administration’s.
Questions and Responses
:
What
bills will reach the President’s Desk?
Laisch indicated probably
Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction/Veterans Affairs.
Regarding a second supplemental bill, he said Senator Harkin always pushes
for school construction in any stimulus package, but added that with the
current floods in Iowa,
he would be wary of including provisions that might spur a presidential veto
and prevent aid from reaching the region.
Can
funding increases be included in a Continuing Resolution?
Laisch stated it was very
unlikely without support from a champion in Congress or the Administration.
How
can the education community push for robust spending increases in this bleak
discretionary spending period?
Laisch responded that
Congress has been willing to explore budget increases citing STEM education
and the passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. He also said
Senator Harkin agrees the discretionary budget is too tight and repealing
President Bush’s tax cuts or ending the war in Iraq would create room for
additional domestic spending.
Source: The Committee for Education Funding, June 2008
Proposed Additional Part B Regulations
Summary of Major Changes
May 2008
Background: Since
issuing the final Part B regulations on IDEA 2004, the Department has
identified several areas in which they determined additional regulations
were needed. In at least one area of the proposed regulations related to
allocations to local school districts not currently serving students with
disabilities, the Office of the Inspector General suggested that
clarifications were needed.
Written
public comments are due on or before July 28,
2008.
Comments must be submitted through the federal regulations Internet portal.
Go to http://www.regulations.gov
to submit comments. Information on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency documents and submitting comments is
available at that site under "How To Use This Site." Note: You will be
required to put the Docket ID at the top of your comments – "Docket ID
ED—2008—OSERS—0005."
Proposed
Changes:
A.
Secs. 300.9; 300.300 – Consent; Parental Consent: The proposed
changes focus on parents' right to revoke consent for initial provision of
services after services have started. The comments clarify, also, that if,
at a later time after revoking consent, parents again provide consent for
services, the district would be obligated to provide those services.
(1)
If parents revoke consent after initial provision of special education and
related services, the school district would not be required to amend
educational records to remove any references to receipt of special
education and related services.
(2)
If parents revoke consent for continuation of services after the initial
provision of special education and related services, the school district
(a)
may not continue to provide services;
(b)
may not use any of the due process procedures, including mediation
and hearings, to override the parents' revocation of consent;
(c)
will not be in violation of the obligation to provide FAPE; and,
(d)
does not have to call an IEP team meeting or develop an IEP.
B.
Sec. 300.177 – States' Sovereign Immunity and Positive Efforts to Employ
and Advance Qualified Individuals with Disabilities: This amendment
reflects Sec. 606 of the statute, stating that IDEA grantees will make
positive efforts to employ individuals with disabilities in programs funded
under the Act.
C. Sec.
300.512 – Hearing Rights: IDEA regulations have not been clear on
whether or not lay advocates may provide representation in due process
hearings. At least one State supreme court (Delaware) has ruled that State
laws prohibiting such representation do not conflict with the IDEA.
This
proposed regulation clarifies that determination of whether families may be
represented by "non-attorneys" at IDEA due process hearings is a matter of
State law. The comments make note that this change would not affect
parents' right to represent themselves, as decided in the 2007 Supreme Court
case, Winkelman v. Parma City School District.
D. Secs.
300.600; 300.602; 300.606 – State Monitoring and Enforcement; State Use
of Targets and Reporting; Public Attention:
(1)
The amended regulation clarifies that States must make annual
determinations about local districts' performance using enforcement
mechanisms that must include, if applicable, technical assistance,
conditions on district funding, corrective action or improvement plans,
and withholding some or all of the district's Part B funds.
(2)
The State must ensure that any noncompliance identified in its LEA
monitoring is corrected promptly and, at the maximum, within a year.
(3)
States would be required to report publicly on local districts'
performance on the targets in the State performance plan not later than 60
days after submitting the annual performance report to the Department of
Education. Currently the regulations require reporting, but do not
include a specific timeline.
(4)
Currently States must make only their performance plans public. The
Department proposes to require public dissemination of the performance
plan, the State's annual performance report (APR), and the State's annual
reports on the performance of each local school district. Documents would
be made available through a variety of public means, including through a
State's web site, the media, and public agencies.
(5) The
proposed regulations specify that States would be required to provide public
notice of any enforcement actions taken by the Secretary of Education, at a
minimum through the web site, the media, and public agencies.
E.
Secs. 300.705; 300.815 - 300.817 – Subgrants to LEAs; Allocations to LEAs;
Reallocation of LEA Funds: These proposed changes are related to
clarifications regarding the requirement that States make subgrants to LEAs,
including public charter schools operating as LEAs, even if an LEA is not
currently serving any students with disabilities. The proposed changes
would clarify this point for subgrants under both Parts B and C.
(1)
States would be required to distribute funds to all eligible LEAs,
including public charter schools operating as LEAs, even if the LEAs are
not serving any children with disabilities, beginning with funds that
become available on the first July 1 following the effective date of these
regulations.
(2)
If an LEA received a base payment of zero in its first year of operation,
the SEA must adjust the base payment for the first fiscal year after the
first child count in which the LEA reports that it is serving any students
with disabilities. This regulation would also go into effect with funds
that become available on the first July 1 following the effective date of
the regulations.
(3)
After an SEA has distributed Part B funds to eligible districts that are
not serving students with disabilities, the SEA must determine, within a
reasonable period of time before the end of the carryover period, whether
the district has obligated any of these funds. If there are funds that
have not been obligated, the SEA may reallocate any of those funds to
other LEAs that are not adequately serving students with disabilities in
their jurisdictions. The State may also keep those funds, up to the
statutory limit, for State-level activities.
(4)
The same proposed regulations addressing Part B funds in #1-3 above are
mirrored in proposed regulations that would apply to Section 619
allocations, for LEAs responsible for serving preschoolers with
disabilities, ages 3 through 5.
Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc.
Recommendations to Congress for the
Improvement of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
The Council of Administrators of
Special Education, Inc., (CASE) is a non-profit professional organization
which provides leadership and support to approximately 5,000 members by
influencing policies and practices to improve the quality of education.
CASE is a division of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), which
is the largest professional organization of teachers, administrators,
parents, and others concerned with the education of children with
disabilities, giftedness, or both.
CASE joins many of the other
national organizations, such as CEC, National Association of State
Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), National Education Association (NEA),
American Association of School Administrators (AASA), Forum on Educational
Accountability (FEA) and others, in support of their proposed policies and
recommendations for improving some of the most essential provisions of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. CASE is especially focused on aligning
the goals and provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) with NCLB to ensure accountability and promote success for all
students.
It has been six years since the
enactment of the NCLB Act and CASE finds many reasons to celebrate. The
goal of closing the achievement gap is a laudable one, and NCLB has helped
create a sense of urgency around systems change. Coupled with the
standards movement and increased attention to the use of scientific,
research-based strategies, demonstrable improvements in student
performance have been noted. Of particular importance to CASE is the
inclusion of students with disabilities in state accountability systems.
These students are finally beginning to receive the attention they
deserve! Despite the many positive effects of NCLB, numerous unintended
consequences continue to surface. Some key areas of particular concern are
as follows:
Highly Qualified Teacher
Provisions
Accountability and
Effective Measurement of Student Performance and Achievement
Response to Intervention
Funding and Resources for
Effective Implementation of NCLB Provisions
1. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER
(HQT) PROVISIONS
CASE recommends:
Increased transparency in criteria for approving state plans as well
as reciprocity between states regarding HQT status be increased as a
means of supporting consistency, quality, and competency standards
that allow teachers flexibility in moving from one state to another.
Continuation of the High, Objective, Uniform State Standards of
Evaluation (HOUSSE) provisions which provide states with multiple
measures to determine whether teachers are highly qualified in given
core academic subjects and to allow for flexibility at the local level
in addressing the persistent special education teacher shortage and
retention issues.
Against
the recommendation by the Aspen Institute to the NCLB Commission to
have states require all teachers to be “Highly Qualified Effective
Teachers” who demonstrate effectiveness in the classroom by
implementing systems for measuring learning gains of a teacher’s
students using three years of student achievement data, principal
evaluations and peer reviews.
2. ACCOUNTABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE MEASUREMENT OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND ACHIEVEMENT
CASE recommends:
Aligning IDEA and NCLB requirements is essential! Individual
protections of IDEA need to be incorporated into NCLB regarding the
meaningful assessment of the full range of students with disabilities.
NCLB should permit Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to
make “individualized” decisions regarding assessment of students based
on identified IEP needs and goals.
Flexibility to use growth models and other measures of progress that
assess student achievement over time for determining Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP). Growth model results could also be used to inform
instructional practices and provide individual assistance to students
and appropriate professional development for staff (NEA).
Accountability should be based on multiple measures of student
learning and school success (NEA). The use of multiple academic
measures, including local assessments, teacher-designed classroom
assessments collected over time, portfolios, etc., to provide a more
comprehensive picture of achievement rather than measure student
performance on a single assessment is essential.
The
IDEA requirement -§300.320(a)(1) and §300.320(a)(1)(i)- for including
functional goals and skills as part of every IEP, be aligned with NCLB
accountability measures that acknowledge the reality of severe
disability for certain students. This would allow the use of
alternate assessment procedures that include assessment of progress
made in functional and life skills taught, as reflected in their IEP.
Adequate yearly progress calculations (AYP) for determining graduation
rates should include those students earning a diploma in more than
four years. NCLB must recognize that students with disabilities may
graduate from high school in more than four years through a student’s
“multi-year” IEP which is a protection afforded to them under IDEA
(§300.102(a)(3)). NCLB should also recognize other state- approved
and awarded diplomas in addition to the standard or advanced
diplomas.
Maintaining the proposed 2% policy allowing students with disabilities
to be assessed against “modified achievement standards” as well as
maintaining the 1 percent policy allowing children with severe
cognitive disabilities to be assessed against alternate achievement
standards using alternate assessments. Also, criteria for the use of
the 2% by SEAs and LEAs need flexible statutory/regulatory
guidelines.
3. RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
(RtI)
CASE recommends:
RtI, in
consideration with other assessments, be used as a strong prevention
model that supports the achievement of all students as opposed to the
more traditional reactive approach based upon the consequences of
failure. In addition, it supports a student growth model rather than a
status model when addressing student achievement in terms of AYP.
Inclusion of RtI in NCLB as a proactive approach to the prevention of
student failure, the improvement of student achievement, and for
ensuring accountability of all teachers in the early identification
and intervention for students who demonstrate poor academic
performance. This would also encourage the leadership of general
educators in this initiative, which is imperative for success
Language that promotes a UNIFIED system of education and collaborative
instructional service delivery should be extensively included
throughout the reauthorized NCLB regulations. This would unite general
and special educators in providing effective instruction in a
consistent manner that reflects the scope of the general education
curriculum in the least restrictive environment.
4. FUNDING AND RESOURCES FOR
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF NCLB PROVISIONS
CASE recommends:
Full
ESEA funding at authorized levels. Federal commitment to financial
resources and technical assistance to fully achieve the goals of NCLB.
Mandatory full federal funding of IDEA at 40 percent of the national
average per pupil expenditure for every child in special education.
The current funding shortfall is significantly impacting local school
district budgets and diverting resources to meet other competing
educational needs and preventing LEAs from developing IEPs that will
truly provide students with a free and “appropriate” public education.
Districts of a child’s residence should be responsible for the
equitable participation of parentally placed private school special
education students and supports the return to the principles and
language of IDEA 1997 law, shifting the responsibility back to the
resident’s LEA rather than the district where the private school is
located (AASA).
Specific funding recommendations
related to each area are as follows:
A. HQT Provisions
CASE recommends:
Funding
and technical assistance incentives for higher education institutions
as well as for state and local education agencies as they collaborate
on teacher training initiatives that are aligned with NCLB goals.
This would include provisions for developing rigorous and valid
alternative routes to certification as well as high-quality
professional development, mentoring programs, and preparation in
evidence-based special education pedagogy.
Funding
for ongoing research to study the relationship between highly
qualified teacher status and improved student outcomes! Specifics on
individualized instruction for individuals with exceptional learning
needs, a solid base of understanding of the general content area
curricula, and proficiency in reading instruction, written and oral
communications, calculating, problem solving, and thinking is
essential.
Increased federal support for pre-service and in-service training for
school administrators that reflect the mandates for implementation of
scientific, research-based strategies for increasing student
performance as well as the increased demands for assessment and
accountability.
Grant
programs and incentives for districts to develop collaborative
partnerships with colleges and universities to offer value-added
licensure programs and coursework designed to incorporate HQT
requirements and enhance ongoing professional development.
B. Effective Measurement of
Student Performance and Achievement
CASE recommends:
Funding
for research and development of more effective assessment and
accountability systems that utilize multiple measures and growth
models and to determine how a growth model can be implemented in a
responsible manner to better meet the goal of high academic
achievement (CEC, NEA, FEA).
Accountability systems to provide support and assistance, including
the financial support for improvement and technical assistance to
schools needing help, and target assistance to districts most in need
of improvement (NEA).
Providing resources to States to develop assessment systems that
include district and school-based measures to provide better, more
timely information about student learning (CEC).
C. RtI
CASE recommends:
Funding
provided for technical assistance and high quality professional
development for both general and special educators to support the
implementation of research-based strategies that improve student
achievement across both the academic and social milieu.
Resources and support for
pre-service and in-service training for school administrators to
promote a clear understanding of what RTI is, what a multi-tiered
intervention model looks like and how it can be implemented, the
supports that teachers will need in making the required paradigm
shift, and the perseverance to see the shift through to implementation
with integrity and fidelity.
Funding
early intervening services from ESEA funding for general education
students. This would include early intervention services such as the
implementation of research-based interventions to address learning and
behavioral needs prior to and, ultimately, limiting the need for
students to be referred for special education.
The
goal of a unified system of education is not yet in place across our
country, though it remains a desired target. This, coupled with a
rapid exodus of building-based and district-wide administrators due to
retirements, makes it extremely critical that NCLB provide regulatory
guidance, resources and support for training the new and less
experienced administrators in the legal and instructional framework
for serving children with disabilities, English language learners, and
children of poverty.
Attention to these key areas will improve the ability of states and
districts to implement NCLB in a meaningful way that makes a positive
difference for students. CASE urges Congress to reconsider these key
provisions so students with disabilities continue to receive an
individualized education which addresses their unique needs while
still profiting from rigorous instruction which is monitored and
reported through the states’ accountability systems.
For additional information from the
Council of Administrators of Special Education, please contact:
Dr. Mary Kealy, Chair, and Carla Jentz (MA), Dr. Judy Hackett (IL), Dr.
Maureen Burgess (CA) and Dr. Jonathan McIntire (FL), members of the CASE
Policy and Legislative Committee, along with assistance from Dr. Myrna
Mandlawitz, CASE Legislative Consultant, and Dr. Emily Collins, CASE
President-Elect, developed talking points for CASE comments during the
hearings to be held as indicated below.
CASE Members are encouraged to look at both the
CASE Talking Pointsand
CEC Talking Points to assist them in
developing their own comments. Those members who will be speaking on
behalf of CASE will also be submitting the CASE NCLB recommendations which
can be found at
CASE NCLB Recommendations
Adopted April 18, 2007
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE- January 2, 2008
On December 26th, 2007, President
Bush signed into a law a bill (HR 2764, Division G) that will increase
federal education spending by 2.9 percent in FY2008. The plan appropriates
$59.2 billion for US Department of Education programs in the fiscal year
that began on October 1st.
The measure will provide:
$13.9 billion to the Title I program for disadvantaged students an 8.6%
increase over the $12.8 billion appropriated for the fiscal year 2007.
$10.9 billion for K-12 state grants under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, a nearly 1 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 level
of $10.8 billion.
$2.93 billion to help states improve the quality of their teachers, a 1.7
percent increase.
$1.2 billion for career and vocational education programs, a .5 percent
decrease.
Legislation to Watch in
2008...
Empowering Children with
Autism through Education Act
Senator Hagel, along with Democrat lead
co-sponsor Senator Dodd, is planning to introduce the Empowering Children
with Autism through Education Act on December 20, 2007. This is the Senate
companion bill to HR 2609 (Rep. John Yarmuth, R-KY). The bill establishes a
task force within the Department of Education to help study the best ways to
improve education for students with autism. There is no cost associated with
the bill. A summary of the bill is below, and the draft language is
attached.
Summary:
I. Directs the Secretary of Education to
establish the “Empowering Children with Autism through Education” task
force. The purpose of the task force is to identify the best practices to
improve the quality of learning for children with autism in grades K-12.
II. The task force would study the best
learning models for kids with autism; the cost-effectiveness of these
learning models; development needs of educators who serve kids with autism
and methods for incorporating state, local and community-based programs and
services in order to provide comprehensive support for autistic kids.
III. The task force would be composed of no
fewer than 20 members, and meet quarterly. The members would be appointed by
the Secretary of Education per recommendations from the National Institutes
of Health, the National Council on Disability, advocate organizations, and
state education agencies.
IV. Directs the task force to report their
findings to Congress.
Policy and Legislative Update
Mary V. Kealy, EdD
Chair, Policy and Legislation Committee
NCLB
Update
The debate over the
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) will continue into 2008 and
possibly into 2009. Members may view the CASE recommendations and the
comments to the Miller McKeon Discussion Draft of the proposed legislation
on the CASE website. The comments submitted also emphasized the funding and
resources necessary for effective implementation of NCLB provisions as
essential to fully achieve the goals of NCLB.
The Education Commission of the States has launched a new database to track
the NCLB reauthorization process at
www.ecs.org/nclbreauthorization.
The database shows the recommendations of 15 major national organizations
for revising specific NCLB requirements and provisions. It further
synthesizes and analyzes the recommendations across 16 issues, including
growth models for calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP). This resource
is an excellent tool for CASE members to use to capture the broad range of
issues being discussed nationally from multiple perspectives by colleagues
in the education community. It may be helpful in your discussions and for
use in local and state advocacy efforts.
Education Funding
CASE has signed on to
joint letters sent by the Committee for Education Funding (CEF) to House and
Senate conferees to support increasing funding levels for each program in
the Labor-HHS-Education(LHHSED) appropriations bills (H.R. 3043, S. 1710).
Conference members were urged to produce a report that restored all cuts to
education programs, increase funding for all education investments, and
oppose across the board cuts for the success of America’s
students.
On November 15, 2007, the
House failed to override the President's veto of the fiscal year (FY) 2008
appropriations bill that funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services (HHS), Education, and other agencies. The President vetoed the
measure on November 13. The legislation includes $509 million more for IDEA
Part B grants to states over last year's level, $6.8 million more for the
IDEA Part C Infants and Toddlers program, and $26 million more for IDEA Part
D programs, including $23 million more for State Personnel Development
Grants. The House fell 3 votes shy of the necessary two-thirds vote to
override the veto, and the Senate will not vote to override because a
two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress is necessary to override a
veto.
Because Congress did
not override the President's veto, compromise legislation will need to be
drafted that the President will agree to sign into law. That means that
increases in vital education and health programs, including increases in
funding for IDEA programs, could be cut.
CASE urges our members to
keep the pressure on congressional offices, especially those members that
voted no on the veto override. In collaboration with CEF, CASE has signed
on to the thank you letters sent to all members who voted to override the
President’s veto of the LHHSED Appropriations Bill. As always, CASE and CEC
will keep you informed of the latest developments in the funding for FY 2008
education programs.
Legislation to Watch…
Two important bills have
been introduced to help schools meet the challenges of improving academic
achievement and fostering a school climate that promotes learning. Detailed
summaries and status of the legislation for both bills may be found on the
CASE website. CASE joins CEC, the National Association of School
Psychologists, and other organizations in supporting these bills to promote
positive learning and behavioral supports for all students. Please contact
your congressional leaders to solicit their support for this legislation
that will have a positive impact on student performance.
·
H.R. 3407:
Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act
(Hare-IL) takes a proactive approach to help education systems meet these
challenges through the promotion of school-wide positive behavior supports
(PBS), shown to reduce disciplinary problems and increase test scores.
·H.R. 3419:
Reducing Barriers to Learning Act of 2007 (Loebsack-IA), related to HR 3407,
amends the Department of Education Organization Act to create an Office of
Specialized Instructional Support Services within the Department of
Education to improve specialized instructional support services in schools.
We appreciate the
advocacy work and action taken by CASE members to support students with
disabilities with one united voice for special education administrators
across the USA.
Dr. Mary V. Kealy is
Assistant Superintendent, Loudoun County Public Schools, VA. She also serves as the chair to the CASE Policy and Legislation Committee.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE- January 2, 2008
On December 26th, 2007, President Bush signed into a law a bill (HR
2764, Division G) that will increase federal education spending by 2.9
percent in FY2008. The plan appropriates $59.2 billion for US Department of
Education programs in the fiscal year that began on October 1st.
The measure will provide:
$13.9 billion to the Title I program for disadvantaged students an 8.6%
increase over the $12.8 billion appropriated for the fiscal year 2007.
$10.9 billion for K-12 state grants under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, a nearly 1 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 level
of $10.8 billion.
$2.93 billion to help states improve the quality of their teachers, a 1.7
percent increase.
$1.2 billion for career and vocational education programs, a .5 percent
decrease.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE- December 3, 2007
As
Congress resumes business today, the status of the LHHSED Appropriations
bill is still uncertain. Before the Thanksgiving recess, Democrats settled
on a plan to try to attract Republican support and bring the President to
the negotiating table by splitting the difference between the President’s
request and the overall budget that the Democrats are proposing.
It
has been reported that appropriators are working on an omnibus package
combining the 11 remaining spending bills that have yet to clear Congress,
which would provide $484.2 billion or $10.6 billion less than the Democrats
originally wanted. All indications are that both the President and
congressional Republicans do not seem too interested in compromising.
It
has also been reported that the key to reaching a compromise over the 11
remaining spending bills will be war funding. Unless a deal is made on this
front, Republicans are not inclined to strike an appropriations deal. Former
Senate Republican budget aid, G. William Hoagland has said, “The timing of
Presidential caucuses and primaries early in 2008 will make it more
difficult for Congress to continue stop gap funding through continuing
resolutions into January and February, as it has in the past.”
The
tentative year end appropriations timetable is to hold a conference meeting
on an omnibus spending package December 11th and to send the
measure to the President by December 14th, which is when the
current continuing resolution expires.
CASE joins several other organizations in the
education community by signing on to the attached joint letter written by
the Committee for Education Funding (CEF). The letter thanks House Members
that voted to override the President's veto of the FY 2008 Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill (H.R. 3043). The letter will be faxed to each of the
277 Members voting YES on the override.
You can view the letter by clicking on the link above.
Written Testimony
Submitted for the Record by
Dr. Christy Chambers, President Council of Administrators of Special
Education, Inc. on “How NCLB Affects Students with Disabilities”
before the Committee on Education and Labor
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. House of Representatives
March 29, 2007
FEA website is up and working -
www.edaccountability.org. Note that specific URLs to the Joint
Statement and the recent report are now different, so if you linked directly
to them, please update
NCLB
Commission by the Aspen Institute
Summary of Recommendations for Reauthorization
Ensuring Teacher
Effectiveness
Recommends requiring
all teachers to be Highly Qualified Effective Teachers (HQET) – teachers who
demonstrate effectiveness in the classroom. Under HQET, states
would be required to put in place systems
for measuring the learning gains of a teacher’s students through a “value
added” methodology, using three years of student achievement data, as well
as principal evaluations or teacher peer reviews.
Ensuring
Effective Teachers for all Children
Recommends ensuring
comparability of access to quality and effective teachers by requiring Title
I and non-Title I schools have similar expenditures for teacher salaries and
comparable numbers of HQETs. Districts must ensure
that Title I schools receive at least 95 percent of the average spent on
teacher salaries from state and local funds compared to non-Title I schools.
Ensuring
Principal Effectiveness
Recommends enhancing
school leadership by establishing a definition of a Highly Effective
Principal (HEP). Requires principals to
obtain certification or licensure as required in their state, demonstrate
the necessary skills for effectively leading a school and,
produce improvements in student achievement
comparable to high achieving schools with similar children facing similar
challenges.
Recommend all
principals meet this new definition, but recommend requiring it as a
condition of working in a Title I school.
Ensuring Accuracy and
Fairness
Calculation of AYP
Recommends improving
the accuracy and fairness of AYP calculations by allowing states to include
achievement growth in such calculations.
These calculations would enable schools to receive credit for students who
are on track to becoming proficient within three years, based on the growth
trajectory of their assessment scores, when calculating AYP for the
students’ school.
Recommends holding
schools accountable for the achievement of all students by restricting the
minimum subgroup size to no more than 20 and confidence intervals to no more
than 95 percent. In addition, recommend improving the rules for including
students with disabilities in AYP calculations. Recommend maintaining
the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE) existing 1 percent policy
(allowing children with severe cognitive disabilities to be assessed against
alternate achievement standards using alternate assessments). However,
would amend the U.S. DOE’s proposed 2 percent policy (allowing students with
disabilities to be assessed against “modified achievement standards”) by
reducing the cap on how many children may
be included under this policy from 2 to 1 percent. Thus states could
administer alternate assessments for up to 1 percent of their student
population and administer assessments with modified achievement standards to
an additional 1 percent of students.
Recommend
strengthening the procedures used for determining which children are
included in these categories and improving the tools and resources available
for IEP teams to make those decisions.
Making States
Accountable for Upholding the Law
Recommend that parents
and other concerned parties have the right to hold districts, states and the
U.S. DOE accountable for faithfully implementing the requirements of NCLB
through enhanced enforcement options with the state and the U.S. DOE.
States and the U.S. DOE would be required to establish a process to hear
complaints,
with the only remedy being the full implementation of the law.
Maximizing Student
Options While Improving Quality
Recommend a
comprehensive approach to expanding the availability and quality of options
for students in schools that do not make AYP. This approach should include
the following:
Schools that make AYP must make available a number
equal to 10 percent of their seats for transfers from other schools in
which students are eligible for choice
An annual independent audit of the space available for
public school choice transfers
If a school district is unable to accommodate all of
its requests for public school choice (as demonstrated in an annual
audit), the school district must offer supplemental education services
(SES or free tutoring) to eligible students
Schools should be required to offer space in school
facilities for private providers of SES if those schools offer the use
of school facilities to other non-school-affiliated entities
Districts must provide enrollment periods several times
a year to ensure that all eligible children have the opportunity to
participate in SES.
Districts must identify and publicize a person or
office that would operate as a point of contact for assisting parents in
learning about options available for their children
Schools that make AYP must make
available a number equal to 10 percent of their seats for transfers from
other schools in which students are eligible for choice
An annual independent audit of
the space available for public school choice transfers
If a school district is unable to accommodate all of its requests for public
school choice (as demonstrated in an annual audit), the school district must
offer supplemental education services (SES or free tutoring) to eligible
students
Schools should be required to offer space in school facilities for private
providers of SES if those schools offer the use of school facilities to
other non-school-affiliated entities
Districts must provide enrollment periods several times a year to ensure
that all eligible children have the opportunity to participate in SES.
Districts must identify and publicize a person or office that would operate
as a point of contact for assisting parents in learning about options
available for their children Recommend the
U.S. DOE use a portion of the Title I funding to study the nationwide
effects of SES on student achievement and that states evaluate the impact of
their SES providers on the achievement of children.
Providing More
Aggressive and Effective Interventions for Schools
Recommend that schools
in corrective action be required to select a comprehensive set of
interventions designed to have a systemic impact, rather than the one option
presently required. Also recommend that schools in corrective action have a
full school year to implement such interventions before facing more serious
sanctions.
Recommend
strengthening the capacity of states and districts to help chronically
low-performing schools by increasing the amount of federal funds set aside
by states for school improvement and by allowing districts to focus their
restructuring efforts on the lowest-performing 10 percent of their schools.
Recommend boosting
research and development on school improvement by doubling the research
budget for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. DOE’s main
research arm – the Institute of Education Sciences.
Improving Assessment
Quality
Recommends maintaining
existing federal support for assessment development and targeting those
funds to several new assessment priorities such as:
Improving the quality of assessments
Providing alternate assessments for students with
disabilities and English language learners
Developing science assessments currently required under
the law and the 12th grade assessment recommended by the
Commission
Improving test delivery and scoring technology
Linking Assessment and
Instruction
Recommends that
districts be permitted to use a portion of their Title I funds to develop or
acquire and implement high-quality formative assessments and be required to
use such assessments in schools that are identified for school improvement.
Such
assessments should be aligned to state standards to provide teachers and
parents with meaningful information on student progress throughout the
year. These assessments would not be used for accountability purposes but
rather as tools to improve instruction to better address individual student
needs.
Aligning State
Standards With College and Workplace Readiness Expectations
Recommend that states
assess their reading or language arts, mathematics and science standards
against requirements for success in college and in challenging jobs.
All states must complete this process within one year of enactment of a
reauthorized NCLB in order to participate in a national summit to be
convened by the U.S. Secretary of Education.
This summit would provide a forum for states to take a fresh look and report
to the American people on whether the expectations they have set are
sufficient to ensure that their students have the opportunity for success
after high school.
Creating Model
Standards at the National Level
Recommend the
development of voluntary model national content and performance standards
and tests in reading or language arts, mathematics and science based on
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) frameworks. A distinguished
national panel, including members of the national Assessment Governing Board
(NAGB), should be commissioned to create the standards and tests,
extrapolating from the form and content of NAEP frameworks for grades 4, 8
and 12, and mapping the additional grades appropriately. In addition, the
panel would ensure that any standards and assessments it produces would be
aligned with college and workplace expectations.
For NCLB accountability purposes, states
could adopt the resulting national model standards and tests as their own,
build their own assessment instruments based on the national model standards
frameworks or continue to keep their existing or revamped standards and
tests. However, the U.S. Secretary of Education would periodically issue
reports that compare the rigor of all state standards relative to the
national model standards using a common metric.
Strengthening
Accountability and Support for High Schools
Recommend requiring
districts with large concentrations of struggling high schools to develop
and implement comprehensive, district-wide high school improvement plans.
High School
Assessments
Recommends creating
complete assessment systems by requiring states to add an additional
assessment in grade 12 to enable measures of student growth in high school.
This assessment should be designed to measure 12th graders’
mastery of content they will need to be college and workplace ready.
However, recommend that this assessment not be used as the sole determinant
for graduation purposes. This assessment,
along with current 10th grade tests, would also make possible the
inclusion of growth calculations in AYP for high schools and HQET/HEP
measurements for high school teachers and principals.
Developing and
Strengthening Data Systems
Recommend requiring
all states to design and implement a high-quality longitudinal data system
within four years of the enactment of a reauthorized NCLB. These systems must
have common elements (described in detail in the report), and
the federal government should provide
formula grants to assist states in their development and implementation.
Legislative
Update: January 12, 2007
House and Senate leadership and appropriations staff
are already working on completing an FY07 funding resolution that would
make appropriations for FY07 including education.
While there had been some talk that the final funding
document would be a massive, detailed omnibus -type bill, favored by
Senator Byrd, key staff now believe, in the interest of time and moving
on to FY08, a very pared down bill would be passed, as favored by House
chairman Obey.
This funding resolution would simply extend funding at
the FY06 levels for the remainder of the FY07 fiscal year. The fiscal
year began October 1, 2006.
Reportedly. there is still a brief window of time for
grassroots advocates to make the case for boosting funding for
education, health and labor programs by as much as $2.3 billion above
the appropriation bills reported out last summer in committee. Major
programs like NCLB, IDEA and Pell grants are likely to be priorities for
increases rather than small programs.
A final FY07 bill would likely move just prior to the
February 15 expiration date for the current continuing resolution.
Key staff expect a new "baseline estimate" for FY08
based on current spending rates to be issued on January 24 by the
Congressional Budget Office.
Budget committee staff expected their members to be
very concerned about entitlement program spending for social security,
Medicare and Medicaid squeezing out new initiatives for education and
other social programs.
Appropriations staff pointed to the harmful effects on
the nation's fiscal health of years of tax cuts and war spending that
was not taken into account in the administration's budget proposals.
According to top Democratic staff, the next several
years would be very hard ones for those seeking increased spending on
education, requiring Congress to make "difficult choices."
There is strong support in both the House and Senate
leadership and funding committees to put tough budget rules back in
place such as PAYGO (offsets for tax cuts and new spending) and also
restricting earmarked projects (special funding set-aside for
influential members of Congress at their request).
CASE members could be very helpful by quickly reaching
out to the more than 40 new members of Congress to educate them on the
impact of cutting back on adequate education investment.
Source: Committee for Education Funding, January 12, 2007
Legislative Update - December 13, 2006
Summary
Before adjourning for
the year and ending the 109th Congress, the House and Senate passed a
Continuing Resolution (CR) that temporarily extends funding for education
programs until February 15 at the same levels as the previous year.
President Bush signed the bill December 9. The incoming chairmen of the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) and
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) released a statement indicating that they would
extend the CR for the entire 2007 fiscal year at the same levels as the
previous year. This means that federal funding for special education
programs will remain flat for school year 2007-2008. The President will
release his budget request for fiscal year 2008 in early February.
Year
Long CR: the Details
On Monday evening,
incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations
committees, Rep. David R. Obey (D-WI) and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.)
announced yesterday that they plan to adopt a year long continuing
resolution (CR) to fund federal programs until the start of the new fiscal
year on Oct. 1.
A year long CR will
fund most education programs at the FY06 levels.
The new chairmen, said
in a statement: "While the results will be far from ideal, this path
provides the best way to dispose of the unfinished business quickly, and
allow governors, state and local officials, and families to finally plan for
the coming year with some knowledge of what the federal government is
funding."
The incoming chairmen
also stated that they would, "Impose a moratorium on new congressional
earmarks, targeted appropriations for special projects in members' home
districts."
Reportedly, Obey and
Byrd will seek adjustments in spending levels to appease both Democrats and
moderate Republicans who were upset by the inadequate funding bills passed
by the House Appropriations Committee. More specifically, the Labor-HHS-Education
funding bill, which fell billions of dollars short of the Senate-approved
levels, and the level that some House Republicans deemed acceptable, may see
increased funding levels. Obey, who was the ranking Democrat on the Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, reportedly will seek to boost funding for
Labor-HHS-Education programs.
According to Senate
staff, it is still doubtful a CR with additional funding for Labor-HHS-Education
would be able to gather 60 votes to pass.
The 302(a) budget cap
for total fiscal 2007 discretionary spending, for example, is $873 billion,
about $7 billion more than what the continuing resolution, employing the
lowest of the three levels would entail.
The following “USER
FRIENDLY” versions of the IDEA 2004 Regulations is provided to CASE by CASE
member, Sue Gamm (IL) of the Public Consulting Group, Inc (PCG) Please note
the “disclaimer” for this version:
These
regulations have been reorganized to facilitate day-to-day usage and
understanding of new provisions. To the extent possible, sections that
were new to and retained from the proposed regulation are highlighted;
those that were added in the final regulation are bolded. Finally, USDE
comments that facilitate an understanding of the regulation are included
below the relevant regulatory section. PCG hopes that you will find this
user-friendly version of the regulation to be helpful as you plan your
professional development activities, provide input to your state special
education regulatory revision process and revise your local policies and
procedures.
Word Version