Spacer graphic

Legislative Action Center!

Spacer graphic
Spacer graphic
Council of Administrators of Special Education
Spacer graphic
Spacer graphic   Spacer graphic
Spacer graphic Spacer graphic Spacer graphic
Spacer graphic Spacer graphic Spacer graphic
Spacer graphic

Spacer graphic

Home
About Us
Archives
Awards
Bulletin Boards
Calendar
Canada
CASE Map
Contact Us
F.A.Q.s
Leadership Hot Tips
Legislative
Links
Membership
Members Only
News
Officers
Photo Gallery
Products
Registration
Resources
Response to Intervention
Scholarships/Vouchers
Search
Sitemap
Workshops


 

CEC Weekly
Public Policy Updates

Click Here


 

Print this Page

 

Spacer graphic
Legislative Action Center 
  • 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.

 

 

bullet 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:
 
bullet

Highly Qualified Teacher Provisions

bullet

Accountability and Effective Measurement of Student Performance and Achievement

bullet

Response to Intervention

bullet

Funding and Resources for Effective Implementation of NCLB Provisions

 1.      HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER (HQT) PROVISIONS
          CASE recommends:
 
bullet

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.

bullet

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.

bullet

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:
 
bullet

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.

bullet

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).

bullet

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.

bullet

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.

bullet

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. 

bullet

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:
 
bullet

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.

bullet

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

bullet

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:
 
bullet

Full ESEA funding at authorized levels.  Federal commitment to financial resources and technical assistance to fully achieve the goals of NCLB.

bullet

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.

bullet

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:
 
bullet

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.

bullet

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.

bullet

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.

bullet

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:
 
bullet

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).

bullet

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).

bullet

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:
 
bullet

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. 

bullet

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.

bullet

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.

bullet

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. 

bullet

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 Points and 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 ACTION

     Joint Sign on Letter

    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.

 

 

 

 

  • CASE Comments on the House Discussion Draft of NCLB 9-05-07

PDF File


09/05/2007

Word Document
  • Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc.
    Recommendations to Congress for the Improvement of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
     

PDF File

Revised
08/2007

Word Document
  • The Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE)
    A Position Statement
    Special Education Students Parentally Placed in Private Schools

    PDF File Word Document

 

  • 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

    View PDF Doc

     

  • The Forum on Educational Accountability

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:

bullet 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
bullet An annual independent audit of the space available for public school choice transfers
bullet 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
bullet 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
bullet Districts must provide enrollment periods several times a year to ensure that all eligible children have the opportunity to participate in SES.
bullet 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:

bullet Improving the quality of assessments
bullet Providing alternate assessments for students with disabilities and English language learners
bullet Developing science assessments currently required under the law and the 12th grade assessment recommended by the Commission
bullet 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.

     

  • Official IDEA Regulations Available…..

The IDEA regs are in the August 14, 2006 Federal Register. This version is just 307 pages!
The link for the PDF of the regulations is as follows : http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-6656.pdf.

  • User Friendly versions of IDEA Regulations

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. 

Public Consulting Group, Inc.
148 State Street, 10th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Tel: 617-426-2026
Fax: 617-426-4632

http://www.pcgus.com/
SueGamm@aol.com

 

  Word Version