Transcript Advocacy conference - AASA, The School Superintendents

Noelle Ellerson
Sasha Pudelski
◦ FCC’s October point of order adjusted $2.25
billion funding cap to inflation and added
dark-fiber to the eligible services list.
◦ Continue to push for an increase for the cap,
given ever increasing demand and rising costs
◦ Exemption from Anti-Deficiency Act:
 Requires USAC to have enough money to pay funding
commitments; without ADA, enforcement of this policy
means LEAs may not receive funds, tightening budgets
 We’ve been operating under a series of one-year
waivers
 S 297 would provide a permanent exemption
EETT/Title II Part D
◦ FY11 CR eliminates Enhancing Education Through
Technology
◦ Pres. FY12 budget proposal calls for Education
Technology Office in Department.
◦ Skeptical of what the office would actually mean
at the local level
◦ Sen. Bingaman introduced the ATTAIN Act (S
1178), which allows for EETT-type program ($300
m trigger)


S.567 sponsored Sen. Kent Conrad (R-ND)/
Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced in March
Bill contains the following changes
◦ Transition to new locale codes
◦ Allow districts to choose between RLIS and
SRSA funding
◦ Switch the eligibility poverty measure
◦ Shift in the sliding formula from $20,000
to $25,000 and $60,000 to $80,000.




NEW legislation introduced to create an Office of Rural
Education Policy in the Department of Education.
Requires Department to establish and maintain a
clearinghouse on best practices and research specific to
the needs of rural schools, as well produce an annual
report on the condition of rural education that would be
submitted to Congress.
The office is also charged with greater coordination of
federal department/agency programs that relate to rural
schools.
Additionally, the legislation requires that whenever the
Department of Education promulgates new rules and
regulations, the Department must explicitly describe how
these rules and regulations would affect rural schools and
communities.
The Safe Schools Improvement Act


Requires LEAs to (1) include clear prohibitions against
bullying and harassment within their discipline policies; (2)
establish and monitor performance indicators for incidents
of bullying and harassment; and (3) establish grievance
procedures students, parents, and educators can use to
redress such conduct.
SSIA would also direct LEAs to notify parents, students,
and educators annually on: (1) the bullying and
harassment prohibited by their discipline policies, (2) the
numbers and nature of bullying and harassment incidents
for each of their schools, and (3) grievance procedures for
redressing such conduct.




46 states already require schools to have bullying
policies and many define bullying and cyberbullying
Unfunded mandate
Not the most effective way for the federal
government to support schools’ anti-bullying
efforts
Federal overreach




The Federal government should fund innovative programs and
initiatives to prevent and respond to bullying, cyberbullying,
harassment, and other school violence incidents through schoolwide prevention and early intervention programs that are
evidence-based and reflect cultural and linguistic competencies.
All funding for bullying prevention activities should be structured
in a manner that makes resources available to all states and
districts.
In addition to programs that specifically address bullying and
cyberbullying awareness, prevention, and intervention, federal
agencies should provide schools with the flexibility to use funds
for programming in the area of social and emotional learning,
student threat assessment, mental health promotion, prevention,
early intervention, and School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports.
Federal programs should include funding for training school
administrators, school resource officers, faculty, students, all
staff in contact with the student population, and families.



Waiting a NRPM that would rescind the
parental consent regulation for Medicaid
reimbursement
Efforts have begun to lobby for local MOE
waiver for IDEA spending modeled on state
waiver
Is your district in danger of not meeting MOE
this year? Talk to me and talk about it on the
Hill!
The Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA)






Introduced in both House and Senate– every Democrat on the HELP
Committee is a co-sponsor
SNDA prohibits public school students from being excluded from
participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federallyassisted educational program on the basis of their actual or
perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their
associates.
The SNDA is closely modeled after title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of
sex and provides legal recourse to redress such discrimination.
Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination
Allows an aggrieved individual to take legal action against the
school district and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they
prevail.
Allows the federal government to deny school districts federal funds
if they are found to be in violation of any part of the legislation.


Granting individual students a private right of
action against a school system creates new costs
and administrative structures and is a slower path
to preventing discrimination than training or
professional development.
While AASA does not take a stand on whether a
student’s sexual orientation or gender identity
should be protected categories under law, we are
committed to providing a safe and healthy school
climate where all students feel safe and able to
learn.

Noelle Ellerson, [email protected]

Sasha Pudelski [email protected]