WASHINGTON UPDATE

1. WASHINGTON UPDATE Bilingual, Immigrant, and Refugee Education Directors’ Meeting May 17, 2012

2. WASHINGTON UPDATE What We’ll Cover: Budget and Appropriations Census and Title I Updates ESEA Reauthorization No Child Left Behind Waivers

3. BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS

4. Budget and Appropriations Final Funding Levels for Federal FY 2012 (2012-13 School Year) Title I Grants: Minimal increase Title II-A Grants for Teacher Quality: Minimal increase Title III Grants for ELLs: Minimal decrease IDEA Part B Grants: Minimal increase School Improvement Grants: Minimal decrease Race to the Top: $550 million allocation

5. Budget and Appropriations Administration’s Proposed Budget – FY 2013 (2013-14 School Year) Title I Grants:Frozen Title II-A Grants for Teacher Quality:Frozen Title III Grants for ELLs:Frozen IDEA Part B Grants:Frozen School Improvement Grants:Frozen Race to the Top:$850 million proposed Investing in Innovation: $150 million proposed

6. Budget and Appropriations Sequestration The Budget Control Act of 2011 increased the federal debt ceiling, but also required the creation of a bipartisan “Super Committee” The Super Committee’s task was to agree to $1.2 trillion in federal budget savings for the next ten years If the Committee failed to approve these savings, the Budget Control Act required across-the-board budget cuts in most defense and domestic programs beginning in January of 2013. These across-the-board cuts are known as “sequestration”

7. Budget and Appropriations Sequestration Sequestration automatically cuts the budget by $110 billion per year, beginning in the middle of FY 2013 (January 2, 2013) Half of the cuts ($55 billion) comes from Defense programs, and the other half from the rest of the budget Limited number of critical safety net program are excluded from sequestration cuts, including Social Security, Medicare, Child Nutrition, and Medicaid

8. Budget and Appropriations Sequestration • Current thinking is that action by Congress and the President, probably after the November elections, will avoid sequestration, as well as the expiration of current tax provisions • Lack of action could result in a potential 8 or 9% cut to federal education programs through sequestration, beginning in federal FY 2013 (the 2013-14 school year) • Additional issues for the FY 2012 funding for four education programs that were substantially forward-funded into FY 2013: • Title I, Title II, IDEA, and Perkins

9. Budget and Appropriations Sequestration As a result of the forward funding, FY 2012 allocations for the four programs may be subject to retroactive cuts in January 2013, in the middle of the upcoming 2012-13 school year

10. Budget and Appropriations Sequestration Title III is not forward-funded, and would not be subject to retroactive cuts in January 2013, in the middle of the upcoming 2012-13 school year However, the distribution of Title III funds by formula is “triggered” by a minimum appropriations level of $650 million A 9% sequestration for Title III would bring the program closer to the minimum threshold

11. Census and Title I Updates

12. Census and Title I Updates Annually updated Census data is used to direct Title I funding Changes in the poverty count at the district level, as compared to the change in the national poverty level, affects annual Title I increase or decrease in a district

13. Census and Title I Updates The virtual freeze in total funding for Title I nationwide, combined with the increased number of children in poverty in other areas in the country, means Council districts are likely to lose Title I funding, even if their poverty increased

14. Census and Title I Updates • Four formula grants comprise the total Title I funding: • Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grants • Targeted and Education Finance grants use weighted calculations – applied to numbers or percentages of poverty • A House ESEA amendment would have phased out the weighting of numbers of poverty, and use only percentages

15. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA)

16. Reauthorization of ESEA Action on Capitol Hill Senate committee approved ESEA legislation in October of 2011, with all Democrats and three Republicans voting in support House committee approved ESEA legislation in February of 2012 on a party line vote, with no Democratic support Floor action on the reauthorization in either House or Senate is unlikely before the end of this year

17. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation House Bills: Program Authorizations • Title I: • Traditional Title I programs, and percentage set-asides for Migrant Education, Neglected and Delinquent Education, English Language Acquisition, and Indian Education formula grants • Title II: • Existing Title II-Part A, and new Part B (Teacher and Leader Flexible Grant) • Title III: • Charter Schools, Magnet Schools, Parent Engagement, Local Academic Flexible Grant

18. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation Senate Bill: Program Authorizations

19. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation Elements of State Accountability System

20. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation Section 1116 Interventions

21. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation Elements of State Accountability System

22. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation Section 1116 Interventions

23. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation Section 1116 Interventions

24. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation Section 1116 Interventions

25. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation English Language Learners

26. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation English Language Learners

27. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation English Language Learners

28. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation English Language Learners

29. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation English Language Learners

30. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation English Language Learners

31. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation English Language Learners

32. Reauthorization of ESEA Provisions in House and Senate Legislation English Language Learners

33. No Child Left Behind Waivers

34. No Child Left Behind Waivers • Round One • Eleven states submitted applications in November 2011 for waivers from key provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in exchange for implementing certain reforms • Waiver applications were approved by the Administration in early February 2012 • Round One States:Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Tennessee

35. No Child Left Behind Waivers • Round Two • Twenty-six states and District of Columbia formally submitted waiver requests in February 2012 • The 27 new requests were posted publicly, along with the notes and the names of the peer reviewers who reviewed them • States will be notified about their requests later this spring or summer • U.S. Department of Education expects additional states to request flexibility by September 2012. 

36. No Child Left Behind Waivers Round Two States: Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia

37. No Child Left Behind Waivers Guidance for application reviews: Section 2.A: Develop and Implement a State-Based System of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support 2.A.i: Did the SEA propose a differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system, and a high-quality plan to implement this system no later than the 20122013 school year, that is likely to improve student achievement and school performance, close achievement gaps, and increase the quality of instruction for students?

38. No Child Left Behind Waivers Guidance for application reviews (continued): 2.A.i.a: Does the SEA’s accountability system provide differentiated recognition, accountability, and support for all LEAs in the State and for all Title I schools in those LEAs based on (1) student achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics, and other subjects at the State’s discretion, for all students and all subgroups of students identified in ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II); (2) graduation rates for all students and all subgroups; and (3) school performance and progress over time, including the performance and progress of all subgroups? 2.A.i.b: Does the SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system create incentives and provide support that is likely to be effective in closing achievement gaps for all subgroups of students?

39. No Child Left Behind Waivers • ELL-specific review criteria • Requests must address the needs of English Learners (ELs) and students with disabilities: • Activities in transition to CCR standards • Interventions designed to improve performance of ELs and • Student growth for ELs and students with disabilities in evaluation and support systems • SEAs must: • Set ambitious but achievable AMOs for student achievement on State assessments in at least English/Language Arts (ELA) and math, separately • Report performance against AMOs disaggregated by all ESEA subgroups • Use AMOs to determine incentives and supports for other Title I schools

40. No Child Left Behind Waivers • New subgroup considerations: • Several SEAs proposed new combined subgroups. To do so, SEAs have to— • Demonstrate that they pick up more schools and students using a combined subgroup • Still report AMOs and performance of all ESEA subgroups • Have protections for individual ESEA subgroups • Peers were instructed to review the use of combined subgroups to ensure its soundness and individual subgroups were not overlooked.

41. No Child Left Behind Waivers • US Department of Education letters to states: • Peer review comments used by USDOE to improve state-designed systems and negotiate approvals. Cited concerns include— • Lack of attention given to the needs of students with disabilities and English Learners, particularly with respect to the transition to college- and career-ready standards and interventions and supports to improve their performance (Kentucky)

42. No Child Left Behind Waivers • US Department of Education letters to states (cont): • Indiana’s inattention to the ESEA subgroups, including English Learners and students with disabilities, such as the lack of annual, ambitious but achievable performance targets that are set separately for reading/language arts and mathematics and are applied to each ESEA subgroup; • The lack of documentation that demonstrates full inclusion of English Learners and students with disabilities in the school rating calculations (Florida)

43. No Child Left Behind Waivers • Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems: • Widespread concerns regarding frequent omissions in proposals— • Clarification needed from Florida on how educator effectiveness scores will be calculated, recorded, reported, and monitored by the State (for both teachers of tested grades and subjects and teachers of non-tested grades and subjects). • The lack of incentives to improve instruction for English Learners and students with disabilities through Tennessee’s educator evaluation and support system.

44. ANY QUESTIONS?