Transcript OAASFEP Fall Coordinators Conference Columbus, OH October

Where Congress Stands on ESEA
and IDEA Reauthorization
Leigh Manasevit, Esq.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Spring Forum 2011
[email protected]
ESEA Reauthorization
2
110th Congress: Second Session:
ESEA Reauthorization
3
ESEA Background
 President Johnson’s legacy: The War on
Poverty, announced on January 8, 1964
 Original Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) was signed into
law by President Johnson in 1965
• ESEA in 1965 = 32 pages
• NCLB of 2001 = 670 pages
4
ESEA Reauthorization: 2007, ouch!
 House Draft Bill imploded for many reasons
 Urgency prior to 2008 elections
 Complexity of House Discussion Draft identification schema
 Complexity of House Discussion Draft intervention schema
 Union antagonism toward teacher effectiveness provisions
 Gone is the post 9/11 partisan moment. Strange bedfellows
are, again, strangers.
5
ESEA Reauthorization: Two
Four Years Later
 Evolution of data systems and growth models
 Progress (some) with school turnaround
 Change in union leadership and strategy – Better
relationships under Secretary Duncan?
 Democratic/Republican majorities – Healthcare
outcome?
6
ESEA Reauthorization Timeline
 NCLB Jan 2001 to Jan 2002
7
ESEA Reauthorization:
Recovery Act and current ESEA Structure
 In addition to program changes, there may be
fiscal changes
 Reexamine comparability
 Reconsider the fundamental structure of federal fiscal
support - Formula vs. Competitive
 Is the 1965 ESEA model appropriate to the contemporary
education reform focus?
8
ESEA Reauthorization:
Congressional Strategy
 Original architects, particularly George Miller (D-
CA) remain central
 Vulnerable Democrats are strategic
 Newly elected Republicans looking to introduce
conservative principles
 Success of Race to the Top
 Recovery Act accountability fatigue
 Inverse relation to Health Care?
9
ESEA Reauthorization:
Congressional Strategy
 Republican strategy
 Returning to federalist roots?
 House Committee on Education and Labor Ranking
Member Representative John P. Kline (MN) - Now Chair
• "I'm not looking to tweak No Child Left Behind," Kline said. "As far
as I'm concerned, we ought to go in and look at the whole thing."
(Nick Anderson, “GOP Leaving ‘No Child’ Behind,” Washington
Post, July 13, 2009)
10
Education Committees
 House Education & Workforce
 Chairman John Kline (R-MN)
 Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA)
 Senate HELP Committee
 Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA)
 Ranking Member Michael Enzi (R-WY)
11
Senate
 Senator Harkin – draft by Easter?
 Wants 1 big bill
12
House
 No official timeframe
 Hearings started
 February: overview
 March: regulations
 6-8 months possible
• Will approach 12 election year
• Chairman Kline – possible numerous
small bills
13
White House
 President Obama, Secretary Duncan:
 Reauthorization this year
 Chairman Kline:
 Cannot allow an arbitrary deadline to undermine quality
reforms
14
Battles
 Formulas, especially Title I, Title III
 RTT and other competitive programs
 Republicans don’t like broad agency discretion, but
do like the idea of locally-driven reform
 Level of Federal engagement and funding
generally
 Accountability
15
Battles
 Vouchers
 Will definitely be in play
 Unlikely to be part of Reauthorization Bill
 But general discussion of school choice will play an
important role
16
Statement of Principles to Fix the ESEA
Issued by 10 moderate Senate Democrats and
Independent Joseph Lieberman
 Increase local flexibility
 Higher standards but more flexibility to meet them
 Consolidate programs
 Spur innovation
 Scale up success
 Reward success
 NCLB did not reward growth
 Transparency and Equity
 Better Reporting
17
Statement of Principles to Fix the ESEA
Issued by 10 moderate Senate Democrats and
Independent Joseph Lieberman
Growth Model
Support SIG 4 models
1.
2.




Teachers and Leaders
3.


Improve pathways to classroom
Evaluate teacher prep by how graduates do
Innovations
4.

5.
Transformation
Restart
Close
Turnaround
Support RTT, Investing in Innovation (i3), and high quality
Charters
Close the comparability loophole
18
Statement of Principles to Fix the ESEA
Issued by 10 moderate Senate Democrats and
Independent Joseph Lieberman
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
(caucuses with Democrats)
19
Secretary Duncan’s
Blueprint
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blu
eprint/blueprint.pdf
20
A Blueprint for Reform - 7 Sections
1. College Career Ready Students
2. Great Teachers and Great Learners
3. Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners
4. A Complete Education
5. Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students
6. Fostering Innovation and Excellence
7. Additional Cross Cutting Priorities
21
Blueprint
1. College Career Ready Students
 Revise standards to align with college career readiness
 Evaluate schools – differential interventions
2. Great Teachers/Great Leaders
 Statewide (new) definitions
 HQT but less emphasis on credentials
•
More on student achievement
22
Blueprint
3. English Language Learners and Other Diverse
Learners


More SWD integration to regular program
Bilingual education
4. A Complete Education – A New Approach
 Literacy
 STEM
 Common State Standards
23
Blueprint
5. Successful, Safe, Healthy Students
 Promise neighborhoods
•
•

Community services
Family support
Community-wide needs assessment
24
Blueprint
6. Innovation and Excellence
 Expanded options
•
•
Charters
“Autonomous” public schools
7. Additional Cross-Cutting Priorities
 Flexibility for success????
25
Possible Changes – GAO Report
 Comparability
 Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Potential
Effects of Changing Comparability Requirements. GAO11-258, January 28.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-258
26
Possible Changes – GAO Report
 Reviewed 3 States, 3 Districts in each
27
General Rule- §1120A(c)
 An LEA may receive Title I Part A funds only if it
uses state and local funds to provide services in
Title I schools that, taken as a whole, are at least
comparable to the services provided in non-Title I
schools.
 If all are Title I schools, all must be “substantially
comparable”
28
GAO Report - Possible Changes
 Districts commonly use student – teacher ratios –
but other factors drive resource allocation
 Weakness in oversight by States
29
GAO Report - Possible Changes
 Changes in requirements would drive more $ to
some Title I schools – but difficult to implement
 Challenges:
 Union contracts
 Teacher seniority rights
30
GAO Report - Possible Changes
 Use of per pupil expenditures by school
31
Race to the Top
 Highly Competitive
 Focus on low(est) performing schools
 Highly structured and detailed
 Incentives ($) to implement ED priorities
 Secretary Duncan specifically defended the 4 SIG
turnaround models
 RTT coordinated with SIG
32
Race to the Top
 Eligibility Requirements
 No bar to linking teacher and principal evaluation
to student achievement (absolute)
 No barriers to Charter Schools (competitive)
33
School Improvement Grants
SIG-1003g
 2 pages in the Law – Section 1003g
 Historically not well funded
 ARRA provided $3 billion
 Secretary Duncan issued 86 page guidance
document February 2011
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance0223
2011.pdf
34
SIG-1003g
 Very prescriptive
 3 tiers of schools
 4 intervention models – Secretary Duncan defends
4 models
 SASA team reviews for 2011 to focus only on SIG
35
SIG-RTT Common Elements
 Whole school approach
 All students
 All staff: including principals
 Focus on lowest performing schools
 Intense embedded PD
36
Other Reauthorization Issues
 AYP – Admin – Scrap and Replace
 With college and career readiness
 Benchmark - certainly move to growth
model
37
Other Reauthorization Issues
 Failure to make AYP
 Center for Education Policy Study http://www.cepdc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Usher_FourYear
sAYPTrends_121610.pdf
 Districts Failing AYP
 2006
29%
 2009
36%
 Schools Failing AYP
 2006
29%
 2009
33%
 2013- 2014
SY 100% proficient: Required
•
Causing sharp increases in target levels
38
Other Reauthorization Issues
 Secretary Duncan:
 82% of schools could fail AYP this year (10-11)
39
Other Reauthorization Issues
 Class size reduction
 Secretary says may not be that important
40
Other Reauthorization Issues
 HQT
 Move to RTT type evaluation based on
student achievement
41
US ED SASA Monitoring – Top Ten
Findings in Frequency
Private Schools
1.





Consultation
Failure to evaluate
Failure to maintain control
Contracting
Student selection
(not based on poverty!!!)
Parental Involvement
2.


95% of reservation to schools
Equitable participation
Parental Involvement
3.


Choice/SES notifications
Teacher qualifications
42
Top Ten Findings (cont…)
4. Fiscal
 comparability
 supplanting
 time and effort
5. District Report Cards
 missing elements
6. Choice
 options not on website
7. State Report Cards
 missing elements
43
Top Ten Findings (cont…)
8. Parental Notification
 Choice and SES options
9. Paraprofessional qualifications
10. SES

Information not on websites
44
IDEA Reauthorization
 Last 2004
 Next ??
 Little movement
 Chairman Klein supports full funding
 McMorris-Rodgers amendment to spending bill undid
proposed cuts in draft spending bill
 Republican rank and file support?
 May go before ESEA
45
This presentation is intended solely to provide
general information and does not constitute legal
advice or a legal service. This presentation does not
create a client-lawyer relationship with Brustein &
Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the
protections under the D.C. Rules of Professional
Conduct. Attendance at this presentation, a later
review of any printed or electronic materials, or any
follow-up questions or communications arising out of
this presentation with any attorney at Brustein &
Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney-client
relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You
should not take any action based upon any
information in this presentation without first
consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular
circumstances.
46