1. E DUCATION I SSUES & THE FY2013 B UDGET VSBA Annual Legislative Conference Deborah Rigsby, Director, Federal Legislation National School Boards Association

2. K EY P OINTS FY2013 Budget Process Budget Control Act of 2011 Pending Legislation Talking Points to Congress

4. C ONGRESSIONAL B UDGET P ROCESS 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

5. C ONGRESSIONAL B UDGET P ROCESS 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

6. B UDGET C ONTROL A CT 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

7. B UDGET C ONTROL A CT 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.

8. S EQUESTRATION 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

9. F UNDING 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

10. FY2012 A PPROPRIATIONS

11. S TATE R EVENUES /E DUCATION A ID 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

13. V IRGINIA F UNDING FOR M AJOR K-12 P ROGRAMS 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 million 13

14. C URRENT S TATE S PENDING P RESSURES Winding down of stimulus funding Medicaid payments Cost of new health care law Prisons Restoration of rainy day funds 14

15. T ITLE 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

16. T ITLE I: T ALKING P OINT 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.

17. 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

18. IDEA F ULL F UNDING A CT 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.

19. S CHOOL I NFRASTRUCTURE 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.

20. S CHOOL I NFRASTRUCTURE 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.

21. S CHOOL B ONDS 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.

22. T ALKING P OINT “ We know that education is going to be the currency of the 21 st 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

23. R EAUTHORIZATION 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 waives ten NCLB’s flaws for states that have approved plans 23

24. ESEA R EAUTHORIZATION 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

25. ESEA R EAUTHORIZATION 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

26. S ENATE ESEA B ILL 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

27. S ENATE ESEA B ILL 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

28. S ENATE ESEA B ILL 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/ 5year plan required for these schools 28

29. S ENATE ESEA B ILL 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

30. S ENATE ESEA B ILL 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 State identifies by 2013-14 school year 30

31. S TUDENTS WITH M OST S ERIOUS C OGNITIVE D ISABILITIES 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

32. S ENATE ESEA B ILL 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 Start or McKinney-Vento Homeless programs 32

33. S ENATE B ILL —S ELECT P ROVISIONS 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

34. ESEA H OUSE A CTION 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

35. H OUSE D RAFT B ILLS : H IGH P OINTS 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 of ED 35

36. H OUSE B ILL 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 No specific interventions 36

37. S TATE P LAN 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/ assessment/accountability 37

38. T EACHER P ROVISIONS 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

39. F UNDING P ROBLEMS 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 higher) 39

40. K EY R EAUTHORIZATION Q UESTIONS 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

41. Deborah Rigsby Director, Federal Legislation National School Boards Association 703-838-6722 drigsby@nsba.org Contact 41 www.nsba.org/advocacy