1 / 30

ESEA : Where We Are and Where We’re Going

ESEA : Where We Are and Where We’re Going. 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. Do Nothing Congress.

lisbet
Download Presentation

ESEA : Where We Are and Where We’re Going

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ESEA: Where We Are and Where We’re Going Michelle Doyle Equitable Services Institute 2014

  2. 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 Do Nothing Congress

  3. 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 What Has Been Done?

  4. 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. Appropriations—A Look Back

  5. 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 Impact of Sequestration

  6. Title IA Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies: FY 2013 $13,760,219 FY 2014 $14,384,802 Percentage change: + 4.539% This change in appropriations for the 2014-15 school year nearly restores all of the funds that were lost during the 2013-14 school year due to sequestration. Appropriators: Omnibus

  7. Basic grants FY 2013 $6,232,639 FY 2014 $6,459,401 Percentage change: + 3.638% Concentration grants: FY 2013 $1,293,919 FY 2014 $1,362,301 Percentage change: + 5.285% Different Funding Sources Title I

  8. Targeted grants: FY 2013 $3,116,831 FY 2014 $3,281,550 Percentage change: + 5.285% Education finance grants: FY 2013 $3,116,831 FY 2014 $3,281,550 Percentage change: + 5.285% Funding Sources (cont.)

  9. 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: + 4.259% Titles IIA and III Funding

  10. 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 ESEA Reauthorization

  11. 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 Highlights of Kline bill

  12. 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 Biggest changes

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

  14. 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 Alexander bill

  15. 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 Administration Initiatives

  16. $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 President’s Budget Proposal FY15

  17. $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. STEM Education

  18. Began with 2012-13 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 Waivers

  19. Adequate Yearly Progress Provision of SES Provision of public school choice transportation Schools and Districts in Need of Improvement Waived Requirements Include…

  20. Common Core or other acceptable standards Assessments tied to standards Priority and focus schools Reward schools Requirements Include…

  21. 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 Renewal of Waivers 2014-15

  22. 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) Private School Implications of Waivers

  23. 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. ConnectED Initiative

  24. 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 http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2013/06/Federal-Funds-Tech-DC-.pdf Updates Needed

  25. 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) Innovative Use of Federal Funds

  26. 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) Additional Ideas

  27. 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 2014-15 Community Eligibility Option

  28. www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/13-0381guidance.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 Title I Guidance

  29. 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 Implications for Private Schools

  30. Thank you! Questions? Contact Michelle at mdoyledc@gmail.com Follow Michelle Doyle Educational Consulting on Facebook Check out Michelle’s blog at www.ask-michelle.com

More Related