Michelle Doyle Equitable Services Institute 2014

 This Congress has not accomplished much  Evidence of the gridlock in DC  44 substantive laws enacted this year ◦ Compared to average of 70 between 1999 and 2012

 Appropriation of funds  Passage of ESEA in the House  Bills for ESEA reauthorization introduced in the Senate **************************************** *****  Extension of Waivers  New guidance on the use of federal funds of technology  Guidance on new method of counting students for Title I

The sequester is a group of cuts to federal spending set to take effect March 1, barring further congressional action. The sequester was originally passed as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), better known as the debt ceiling compromise. It was intended to serve as incentive for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka the “Supercommittee”) to come to a deal to cut $1.5 trillion over 10 years. If the committee had done so, and Congress had passed it by Dec. 23, 2011, then the sequester would have been averted.

 Across-the-board cut of 5.1% for Education Department programs  Cuts in each LEAs differed: ◦ Increase in poverty = application of formula yields less than 5.1% cut ◦ Decrease in poverty = application of formula yields more than 5.1% cut

 Title IA Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies: ◦ FY 2013$13,760,219 ◦ FY 2014$14,384,802 ◦ Percentage change: %  This change in appropriations for the school year nearly restores all of the funds that were lost during the school year due to sequestration.

 Basic grants ◦ FY 2013$6,232,639 ◦ FY 2014$6,459,401 ◦ Percentage change: %  Concentration grants: ◦ FY 2013$1,293,919 ◦ FY 2014$1,362,301 ◦ Percentage change: %

 Targeted grants: ◦ FY 2013$3,116,831 ◦ FY 2014$3,281,550 ◦ Percentage change: %  Education finance grants: ◦ FY 2013$3,116,831 ◦ FY 2014$3,281,550 ◦ Percentage change: %

 Title IIA ◦ FY 2013$2,337,830 ◦ FY 2014$2,349,830 ◦ Percentage change: +.513%  Title III ◦ FY 2013$693,848 ◦ FY 2014$732,400 ◦ Percentage change: %

 First signed into law January 2002 for 5 years  Renewed each year without change  Several attempts at passage ◦ Miller proposal ◦ Kline bill (passed House) ◦ Harkin bill (passed out of Committtee twice) ◦ Alexander bill

 Enhanced consultation language, goal to reach agreement, added pooling and how $$ calculated, “substantially failed” added to bypass and complaint  Calculate private school funding on state level—inform simultaneously; ombudsman  Sign off for all programs  Counseling and mentoring firmed up in Title I

 Title I funds determined prior to any set asides ◦ Currently 20% or more set aside for public school only purposes  Title IIA funds determined prior to other uses by LEA ◦ Currently LEA chooses to spend IIA funds on class size reduction, teacher recruitment/retention, and professional development

 Passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP)  Did not include any changes to the private school sections

 Minority alternative  Not considered by the Committee  Includes “fix” for Title I ◦ Funding for private school program determined prior to any set asides by the LEA

 State of the Union: If Congress can’t get it done, Administration will use Executive Orders  Administration has already been making changes ◦ Waivers ◦ Technology ◦ Community Eligibility Option

 $14.4 billion for Title I College- and Career-Ready Students;  $11.6 billion for Special Education Grants to States  $723 million for English Learner Education,  $506 million School Turnaround Grants (STG) program

 $170 million in new funding for a comprehensive STEM Innovation proposal to transform teaching and learning in STEM education.  $110 million for STEM Innovation Networks to provide competitive awards to LEAs in partnership with IHEs, nonprofit organizations, other public agencies, and businesses to transform STEM teaching and learning by accelerating the adoption of practices in P-12 education that help increase the number of students who seek out and are effectively prepared for postsecondary education and careers in STEM fields.  $40 million for STEM Teacher Pathways in support of the President’s goal of developing 100,000 new, effective STEM teachers through competitive grants for recruiting, preparing, placing, and supporting talented recent college graduates and mid-career professionals in the STEM fields in high-need schools.  $20 million to support the activities of a National STEM Master Teacher Corps, which would identify, refine, and share models to help America’s best and brightest math and science teachers make the transition from excellent teachers to school and community leaders and advocates for STEM education.  $10 million for a new Non-Cognitive Skills initiative that would provide competitive grants to district and researcher partnerships to develop and test interventions to improve students’ non-cognitive skills in the middle grades.

 Began with school year for two years  45 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Bureau of Indian Education submitted requests for ESEA flexibility  42 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are approved for ESEA flexibility

 Adequate Yearly Progress  Provision of SES  Provision of public school choice transportation  Schools and Districts in Need of Improvement

 Common Core or other acceptable standards  Assessments tied to standards  Priority and focus schools  Reward schools

 This one-year extension will allow SEAs and ED to gather additional information on successes and challenges in the implementation of reforms committed to under ESEA flexibility, in order to improve current systems and better support students and teachers.  Must amend application to address monitoring findings

 Difficult to get transparency  No longer (unless in waiver app) have SES, public school choice, SINI, DINI = less set asides  Add common core  Add priority and focus schools = set asides (in some cases)

 High-speed internet to the classroom,  Affordable mobile learning devices,  High-quality learning content, and  Support for teachers to move to digital learning Within five years.

 Many of the terms we use today to describe technology-enhanced learning did not exist when laws such ESEA and IDEA were passed (2001 and 2004)  ED: Need to clarify opportunities to use federal grant funds to support digital learning  s/2013/06/Federal-Funds-Tech-DC-.pdf s/2013/06/Federal-Funds-Tech-DC-.pdf

 Support teachers using digital learning tools (IIA and IA)  Provide online professional development (IIA)  Adopt digital competency-based professional development (IIA and IA)  Digital resources for Common Core (IIA)  Digital educational resources for English Language Learners and students with disabilities (III and IDEA)

 Use technology to communicate with parents (IA, III, IDEA)  Connect teachers and STEM professionals with technology (IIA and IIB)  Participate in English Learner focused Communities of Practice (III)  Provide students with mobile learning devices (IA)  Provide assistive technology (IDEA)

 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010  Goal to increase meals served  Direct certification ◦ SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, etc.  Schools with 40% or more directly certified students are eligible  1.6 times # of directly certified = new lunch count  Serve free meals to all  All states eligible

 www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/ guidance.doc  Public and private schools eligible for using CEO ◦ Unlikely many private schools will use the option  Need 40% directly certified  Need to participate in the lunch program  Need to provide free lunches to those not counted for reimbursement

 CEO could lead to higher public school count ◦ That’s the goal of the program!  Title I funding does not increase due to use of CEO  Proportional share for private school program will be less if public school count is higher

Questions? Contact Michelle at Follow Michelle Doyle Educational Consulting on Facebook Check out Michelle’s blog at