Transcript Education Funding and the FY2012 Budget

EDUCATION ISSUES &
THE FY2013 BUDGET
VSBA Annual Legislative
Conference
Deborah Rigsby, Director, Federal Legislation
National School Boards Association
KEY POINTS
FY2013 Budget Process
 Budget Control Act of 2011
 Pending Legislation
 Talking Points to Congress

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS
February 14 – President submits budget request to
Congress
 February 15 – Congressional Budget Office submits
reports to House & Senate Budget Committees
 March 19 -- Authorizing committees submit views and
estimates to Budget Committees
 April 1 – Senate Budget Committee reports concurrent
resolution on the budget

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS
 April
15 – Congress completes action on budget
resolution
 May 15 – Annual appropriations bills may be
considered in the House
 June 10 – House Appropriations Committee
reports last annual funding bill
 June 15 – Congress completes action on
reconciliation legislation
 June 30 – House completes action on annual
appropriations bills
 October 1 – Fiscal year begins
BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011
Automatic triggers that would reduce overall spending
by $1.2 trillion, spread evenly over the fiscal years 2013
through 2021
 Half of the $1.2 trillion would come from defense
spending and half from non-defense programs through a
process called budget sequestration.
 Process could reportedly cut funding for education
programs by an more than $3.5 billion, or about 7.8
percent.

Source: Congressional Budget Office
BUDGET CONTROL ACT


Triggered budget cuts would begin in FY2013, during the
2012-13 school year.
Talking Point to Congress:

Ensure that the Budget Control Act cuts do not affect advance
appropriations (Title I, special education, career and technical
education) to school districts since they would begin in the
middle of the 2012-13 school year.
SEQUESTRATION
 FY
13 = fixed percentage across-the-board
cuts.
CBO Projection = 7.8% cut to all non-exempt
domestic programs.
 Would be a cut of $3.5 billion to education programs
(based on FY 12 level).
 CBPP projects 9.1% = $4.1 billion ED cut.
 Pell grants exempt in first year.

 FY
14-21 – will not be ACB cut; further
lowers discretionary caps

Squeezes education $
8
FUNDING
FY 2012
 Consolidated Appropriations Bill
 Extends
funding to 9/30/12
 Across the board cut of .189%
FY 2013
 President’s budget: 2/6/12
 Budget Control Act - 10 year plan
9
FY2012 APPROPRIATIONS
STATE REVENUES/EDUCATION AID



States’ general expenditures were $21 billion less than in
2008, the year before the recession.
18 states made mid-year FY2011 reductions to K-12
education & 12 states reduced K-12 general assistance in
FY2012.
Reduction in federal funds compounds fiscal challenges.
Fiscal Survey of States, Fall 2011
VIRGINIA FUNDING FOR MAJOR K-12
PROGRAMS
Regular Appropriations for Virginia under Title I, IDEA,
Teacher Quality total about $574.5 million
 Remaining special funding for Virginia:

A. Stimulus ($5.6 million of $251
million)
Stabilization funds: $172 of $983.9 million
Title I: $147,000 of $165.3 million
IDEA: $769,294 of $281.4 million
SIG: $36.1 million of $50.6 million
B. Jobs Fund : $155.4 million of $253.2
13
million
CURRENT STATE SPENDING PRESSURES

Winding down of stimulus funding

Medicaid payments

Cost of new health care law

Prisons

Restoration of rainy day funds
14
TITLE I
Serves an estimated $20 million students in more
than 90 percent of school districts
 Title I schoolwide programs operate in an
estimated 35,000 schools
 Extended school day programs, professional
development, parental involvement, preschool
programs

TITLE I: TALKING POINT

Title I investments must be sustained in order to
support the increased demand. More students
are eligible and need Title I services because of
the economy, which has added more students to
the national poverty count, creating a greater
need for additional resources.
IDEA


Current funding level is roughly less than 17 percent of
what Congress promised (or less than one-half of what
Congress promised under the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act).*
Below the 40% of the National Average Per Pupil
Expenditure (estimated at $10,154 for the 2009-10 school
year).
17
IDEA FULL FUNDING ACT
S. 1403 – sponsored by Senator Harkin
 Would reauthorize funding levels for IDEA
through FY2021 to reach the full funding level of
the federal share (40% of the excess cost per
student) = $35.3 billion.

SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE


FAST Act (S. 1597) – Fix America’s Schools Today
Act would provide $25 billion in grants for school repairs
and renovation.
Estimated that a school could save up to $100,000 per
year in maintenance costs – enough for two teachers, 200
more computers, or 5,000 textbooks, according to Sen.
Sherrod Brown.
SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE
The Rehabilitation of Historic Schools Act (S. 1685)
would permit corporations and other private entities to
benefit from a tax credit when investing in the rehabilitation
of an older school building.
 Pursuant to the partnership developed by a school board and
a participating private entity, allowing local governments to
use the historic building rehabilitation tax credit.
 Sponsored by Sens. Jim Webb and Mark
Warner and Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.

SCHOOL BONDS
Urge Congress to pass the “Rebuilding
America’s Schools Act” – S. 796 and H.R. 2394
 Would extend Qualified School Construction
Bonds (QSCBs) & Qualified Zone Academy Bonds
(QZABs)
 QSCBs provided $22 billion in school
construction bond authority for 2009 – 2010.
 QZABs provided $2.8 billion in bond authority
during 2009-2010.

TALKING POINT

“We know that education is going to be the
currency of the 21st Century. There’s been almost
no discussion of that on either side about what we need
to do to raise the level of education so everyone will
have the skill set to compete in that hyperconnective
world that you describe.”
--Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, December 25, 2011
REAUTHORIZATION OF ESEA
Policy Context
 NCLB: A standards and data driven accountability
system containing flaws that are having an increasingly
negative impact
 ED’s Principles for School Reform: Four priorities to
drive the delivery system within the NCLB framework
 Race to the Top
 ESEA Reauthorization Blueprint
 NCLB Regulatory Relief Program to continue the NCLB
framework plus adding detail to the four principles but
23
waives ten NCLB’s flaws for states that have approved
plans
ESEA REAUTHORIZATION
Policy Context
Senate Bill: With variations,
generally follows ED’s overall
approach—including the federal level
retaining specific requirements and
approval of the state’s accountability
system—plus adding some new
requirements and other
programming
24
ESEA REAUTHORIZATION
Policy Context
 House Bill: Follows the pattern
except removes many specific
requirements and elements to be
approved in the state plan—plus
consolidating some programs,
putting constraints on federal
regulatory authority, and limiting
funding
25
SENATE ESEA BILL
Similar
achievement/accountability
approach as ED’s waiver program
Adopting college and career ready standards
(12/2013)/Implement assessments (2015-16 school
year)
 Replace existing AMOs proficiency requirements for
all students/subgroups by 2014 with new
achievement goals set by the state
 Replace identification/intervention for all schools
not making AYP for any of its subgroups with a
focus on lowest performing (ED’s priority schools)
and highest achievement gap (ED’s focus schools)26

SENATE ESEA BILL
Accountability System
State
develops by 2013-14 School Year
Covers all schools
 Requires continuous improvement
 Indentifies and supports weak schools
 Builds local capacity

Measuring
growth as an option
Requires equitable distribution of
teachers
Requires more complex system of
parental engagement
27
SENATE ESEA BILL
Interventions for Persistently Low
Performing Schools (ED’s Priority
Schools)
 5%
lowest performing high schools including grad
rates/ lowest 5% of all other schools
 Seven turn-around models, including a state option
if approved by ED
 Must replace principal if at an identified school for
more than 2 years
 State identifies schools by 2013-14 school year/
28
5year plan required for these schools
SENATE ESEA BILL
Interventions for Persistently Low Performing
Schools (con’t)
 *Transformation- Staff Reapplies
 *Strategic Staffing-Principal Appoints Teacher Leadership
Team
 *Turnaround-At Least 35% of Teachers Replaced
 Whole School Reform- Reform Developer Used
 Restart-Charter or Magnet School
 School Closure-Students Attend Higher Performing
School
 State Option-State Designed Strategy Approved by ED
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------*Must Also Replace Principal If At School For More Than Two Years
29
SENATE ESEA BILL
Interventions for Achievement Gap Schools
The
5% of high schools with state’s
largest gap among subgroups within
their school or state overall—including
lowest graduation rate
The 5% of other schools with largest
gap among subgroups
Interventions required but no specific
model
30
State identifies by 2013-14 school year
STUDENTS WITH MOST SERIOUS
COGNITIVE DISABILITIES
Can
provide alternative achievement
standards for the individual if aligned
with content standards
Can provide alternative assessments if
aligned with alternative achievement
standards
Subject by subject
 Parent involvement
 Tied to general curriculum
 Limit 1% of students statewide

31
SENATE ESEA BILL
Other Select Provisions
 Family
engagement plans/school compacts
 Highly Qualified Teachers continued but
not for special-ed teachers of multiple
subjects
 Comparability of services based on budget
of each school (2015-16 School Year)
 Coordination requirements for early-ed
programs involving children in Head Start32
or McKinney-Vento Homeless programs
SENATE BILL—SELECT PROVISIONS
Other Programs
 English Language Learners and Immigrant Students
 Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students
 Race to the Top
 Investing In Innovation (i3)
 Public Charter Schools
 Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)
33
ESEA HOUSE ACTION
 H.R.
1891—Eliminates 42 smaller federal
programs
 H.R. 2218—Replaces existing Charter
School Program with a focus on creating
new charters through a new $300 million
competition grant program
 H.R. 2245—Provides 100% flexibility to
transferring funds among ESEA programs
 Draft bills on accountability and teaching 34
HOUSE DRAFT BILLS: HIGH POINTS
 Funding
focused on Title I/Ell students and
professional development
 Broad state discretion in developing student
achievement plan
 Does not address (and discontinues)
programs targeted to specific curriculum
areas like
 Technology/ Literacy/Stem
 Reduce federal footprint: Limits authority
35
of ED
HOUSE BILL
Expands state/local discretion
 Standards
No common core or university validation
 Science not required
 Assessment
 Science not required
 Individual proficiency and Growth must be factors
 Accountability
 Growth may be a factor plus other indicators
indentified by state
 No specific number/percent of schools identified 36
 No specific interventions

STATE PLAN
 State has six years to develop new
standards/assessment/accountability system
 ED
can only turn plan down if it doesn’t meet
general requirements—but plan must ensure
that the accountability system will result in all
students being prepared for college or workplace
without remediation
 ED
specifically prohibited from mandating or
coercing any element of standard/
37
assessment/accountability
TEACHER PROVISIONS
 Highly
Qualified Teacher requirement
eliminated
 Professional development programs restyled into
two pots:
Formula funds for general professional development use, provided
that the school district has three or more rating tiers in a teacher
evaluation system using a) student performance as a significant
factor and b) multiple measures to evaluate—with use of the
evaluation for personnel decisions
 Competitive grants—Alternative certification/ performance pay,
retention strategies, professional development

38
FUNDING PROBLEMS
 Sets
next year’s funding at FY 2012 levels
and caps subsequent years to CPI (i.e.,
reduces real service levels over time)
 Eliminates
maintenance of effort
requirements for states and counties/cities
that fund education, (i.e. eliminates
conditioning federal funding to these
government entities continuing to fund
education at the previous year’s levels or
39
higher)
KEY REAUTHORIZATION QUESTIONS

How large and broad should the federal role be?

How much control should the federal government have?

How much discretion should ED have?

Will the federal dollars match the federal expectations?
40
Contact
Deborah Rigsby
Director, Federal Legislation
National School Boards Association
703-838-6722
[email protected]
www.nsba.org/advocacy
41