1. Survival of the Fittest Status of Federal Education Legislation Julia Martin, Esq. jmartin@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Spring Forum 2015

2. Agenda  Congressional Priorities  ESEA  Higher Education  Perkins  Early Education  Child Nutrition Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC2

3. Congressional Priorities Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC3

4. What’s Next?  Joint op-ed from Boehner/McConnell in November lists priorities as:  Simplify tax code  Reduce spending by revising entitlement programs and other drivers of debt  Legal reforms, including medical malpractice  Regulatory reforms  Education reforms 4

5. What are education priorities?  Reform federal involvement in education through:  Expanding charter school access  Reducing college costs  FAST Act reintroduced on 2 nd day of new Congress  Reforming K-12 education by: (mostly part of H.R. 5)  Revamping teacher evaluations  Giving States/districts more control over use of federal funds  Increasing school choice options Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC5

6. Where does education fit in?  How to determine what is a priority?  Time  Legislation  Bill number  Overall in Congress, education not a top priority  Instead, focus is on:  “Must-pass” legislation  Vote-generating legislation  Emergent crises (or “crises”) Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC6

7. ESEA Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC7

8. ESEA Progress  For House/Senate Committees, ESEA is reauthorization priority #1  Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)  Discussion draft released, hearings began mid-January  Alexander-Murray bill released in early April, markup in mid- April  House Committee on Education and the Workforce  Student Success Act (H.R. 5) introduced early February, approved by Committee February 11 th  No hearings – building on debate in 113 th Congress Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC8

9. Problems on House Floor  Set for vote last week of February, but bill was pulled from schedule before final vote  Vote scheduled for same day as Homeland Security funding bill  Objections from conservative Republican groups:  Not enough of a departure from NCLB  Too tolerant of Common Core  Not enough flexibility for States/districts  too prescriptive  Did not allow Title I portability funds to be used at private schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 9

10. Remaining Hurdles  Busy House/Senate schedule  Other legislative priorities  Democratic opposition  From within Congress and from President/administration  Concerns about “walking back” accountability/ civil rights  Concerns about funding/portability  Republican opposition  Opposition from conservative Reps., action groups Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 10

11. Where to go from here?  Two choices (assuming Senate Passes bill):  House passes Senate bill (or vice versa)  Then Senate passes revised version with any House amendments, sends to President for signature  House and Senate meet in “conference” to work out differences between bills  Final compromise legislation must be passed by House and Senate, then sent to President for signature  Both options complicated by House problems in passing bill Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC11

12. Likely Contents of ESEA Reauthorization  What’s Definitely Out  AYP  Instead: States design and implement plans for intervention and improvement  Requirement to adopt specific college- and career- ready standards  Instead: leaves standards and assessments up to States  Race to the Top (and i3)  Instead: focus on formula funding (and budget-cutting)  Teacher evaluations, HQT  Instead: focus on State licensure/training/PD Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 12

13. Likely Contents of ESEA Reauthorization  What’s Definitely In  Title I structure, formula  Charter school grants  Focus on States with laws more open to charters  Limitation on Secretarial waiver, decision- making authority  Funding flexibility between Titles II and IV  Consolidation of some programs/titles  Supplement, not supplant (but some changes)  Maintenance of effort (may change?) Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 13

14. ESEA Flashpoints  Appropriations  House bill, Senate discussion draft would limit total appropriations to FY 2015 levels  Senate bill as introduced allows “such sums” as necessary  White House veto threat mentioned limitation on funding as negative  Assessments  Senate draft included potential for allowing grade-span assessments  Pressure from parent and other advocacy groups to lessen testing  White House pushback, support from Democratic and Republican leadership for current requirement  accountability 14

15. ESEA Flashpoints  Title I Portability  House bill would allow States to set up systems where Title I funding follows low- income student to school of their choice  White House, left-leaning advocacy groups highly critical  In House floor debate, conservatives ask for even more on portability (funding for private schools)  Senate bill as introduced has no portability  Introduced as amendment Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 15

16. Higher Education Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC16

17. House and Senate Committee Action  House Committee on Education and the Workforce  Held multiple hearings in 113 th Congress on HEA reauthorization  Solicited input on various topics from stakeholders  No legislation drafted  No action to date in 114 th Congress 17

18. House and Senate Committee Action  Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) released “white papers” on HEA suggesting policy changes and asking for input (due April 25 th )  Accreditation:  Reform process to improve quality while providing accountability to “government stakeholders and taxpayers.”  Streamline accreditation regulations to:  Remove those unrelated to institutional quality  Permit more flexibility and gradation in reviews (no “pass-fail” determinations)  De-link accreditation from eligibility for federal student aid

19. House and Senate Committee Action  Senate Committee white papers, continued:  Accountability for student borrowing and college completion  “Market-based” policies and practices to make institutions share in risk of lending to student borrowers  Concerns about institutions with extremely high default and/or low completion rates  Suggests risk-sharing system that would require institutions to take responsibility for high borrowing amounts, high cohort default rates, and high rates of fraud Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 19

20. House and Senate Committee Action  Senate Committee white papers, continued:  Data transparency/consumer information  Set policies that “enable students and families to select the college or university that best fits their needs”  Review types of data collected to determine whether still necessary and valid  Reduce the burden on institutions  Prohibit ED from creating new accountability metrics from federal data, or from requiring new metrics, without explicit authorization from Congress?  New federal student unit record system?  Exceptions to federal student privacy laws to allow additional data to be collected? 20

21. Likely Points of Contention  Student loans/federal student aid  Regulation of lenders, schools  ED administration of loans/servicers  Interest rates  Streamlining institutional aid programs?  For-profit schools  Recruitment  Loans  Accreditation  Gainful Employment regulations  Scope of federal involvement  State authorization  Student privacy Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC21

22. Perkins Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC22

23. Perkins  Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act originally due for reauthorization in 2012  Bill introduced in Senate in June 2014  Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)  Would reauthorize, promote alignment with other programs, workforce needs  House Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) says Perkins will be next stop after ESEA  Focus: aligning coursework to industry needs Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 23

24. Early Education Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC24

25. Early Education  Administration’s plan announced in President’s 2014 State of the Union address  $77 billion in subsidized universal pre-K for low/middle-income families over next decade  Decreasing federal share of costs  States receive funding for adopting certain quality standards  Preschool Development Fund  Appropriations special project in FY 2015, part of President’s request for FY 2016 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 25

26. Early Ed in ESEA?  General effort from Democrats to make pre-K contiguous with K-12  Sen. Murray, White House want to roll into ESEA reauthorization  Sen. Alexander: Early education is important but --  Are current programs working optimally?  Is this the time?  Reauthorizing ESEA is “hard enough”  Rep. Kline: Early education is important, but spending too much money each year on Head Start, CCDBG  Before starting a new program, need to reevaluate current efforts Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC26

27. IDEA Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC27

28. IDEA  No action to date  Some technical tweaks to MOE penalty in appropriations bills  Focus is on “full funding” of existing federal obligation  “Full funding” = 40% of excess cost of educating students with disabilities  Various bills to bring federal commitment up to that level  But these initiatives stall because of cost  Extremely unlikely to move before ESEA Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC28

29. Child Nutrition Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC29

30. Child Nutrition  Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act Expires September 30, 2015  Law and regulations continue to be controversial because of new nutrition standards for school meals  Each side has research/studies supporting points  Administration vowed to veto FY 2015 appropriations bill that would have weakened standards  Will be big fight in summer 2015! Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC30

31. Arguments on Child Nutrition  School Nutrition Association (SNA), Congressional Republicans say standards are:  Too expensive, too burdensome  Lead to increased food waste, decreased participation  White House, administration say standards are:  Improving nutritional quality  Expanding access Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC31

32. SNA Drama  School Nutrition Association  Multi-purpose organization  Represents school nutrition professionals as lobbying group  Offers industry testing/certification  Acts as go-between with suppliers and school food authorities  Change in leadership  Under former President, organization supported new standards  New President changes position, fires former lobbyists, files ethics complaint against former lobbyists  Member petition against changes, are told by SNA that they are discrediting organization Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 32

33. Overall  Focus continues to be on proposals that would revise large-scale bills  But any efforts subject to limitations on timing, priorities from House and Senate leadership  Work on examining needs, gathering input continues behind the scenes  Legislators continue to introduce “marker” bills to set stage for future reauthorization Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC33

34. Disclaimer 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 lawyer-client 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. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC34