finally time for esea reauthorization? recent actions in congress julia martin, esq....
TRANSCRIPT
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 1
FINALLY TIME FOR ESEA REAUTHORIZATION?RECENT ACTIONS IN CONGRESS
Julia Martin, [email protected]
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLCFall Forum 2015
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3
WHAT DO YOU MEAN “FINALLY?”
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Passed in 2001
Last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 5
THEN AND NOW
Then: Bipartisan support for passage “Ninety-nine percent pure”
(Margaret Spellings)
Now: “[T]he worst piece of education legislation
ever passed by Congress” (Diane Ravitch) “[A] slow-motion train wreck” (Arne Duncan)
6
WHY THE ERODING SUPPORT?
Not enough money
Too many regulations
Burdensome reporting/administrative requirements
Increased focus on test preparation: “teaching to the test”
Unreasonable goals: 100% proficiency by 2014
Top-down, one-size-fits-all modelBRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 7
PREVIOUS (FAILED) ATTEMPTS
Chairman Miller’s 2007 draft
Chairman Kline’s piecemeal 2011 reauthorization
Chairman Harkin’s 2011 Draft reauthorization
Attempted 2013 Reauthorization
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 8
THE ROAD SO FAR
9
STARTING OFF
House passed legislation (H.R. 5, the Student Success Act) on July 8th with vote of 218 – 213
Senate passed legislation (S. 1177, the Every Child Achieves Act) passed Senate July 16th with vote of 81-17
Pause in debate over August recess…and September…and October
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 10
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
Title I Portability Included in House bill
Conservatives wants to include Private schools too
Not part of Senate Bill
Consolidation of Programs House bill consolidates most Title IV programs into
larger block grants to States, districts
Senate bill has consolidated funding stream for some, but preserves many Title IV programs
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 11
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
Accountability – more of a gray area Level of involvement of federal government vs. what is
left to States
How to ensure accountability?
Title I Formula House bill would make very small change to prioritize
rural districts
Senate bill contains trigger (Burr amendment) that would change title I formula to focus more on poverty if appropriations top $17 billion (unlikely)
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 12
CONFERENCE
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 13
OPTIONS FOR PASSAGE OF A BILL
If the bill has been passed by one chamber goes to other chamber to start process anew
If there are similar bills passed but no will/time to conference legislative “ping pong”
If there are similar bills passed in each house conference Members are appointed to work out differences
Issues can only be considered if they appear in one of the bills (conference committee can’t bring in new, additional issues)
New bill must be passed by both chambers to become law
Once bill is report by conferees, no amendments are permitted
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 14
CONFERENCE
Committee staff worked out differences between individual provisions over September/October, agreement announced in mid-November
House appointed conferees on 11/17 Republicans: Kline, Foxx, Messer, Roe, Rokita, Thompson, Guthrie, Russell,
Grothman, Curbello
Democrats: Scott, Susan Davis, Fudge, Polis, Wilson, Bonamici, Clark
Senate appointed conferees morning of 11/18 Republicans: Alexander, Enzi, Burr, Isakson, Paul, Collins, Murkowski,
Hatch, Scott, Kirk, Roberts, Cassidy
Democrats: Murray, Mikulski, Sanders, Casey, Franken, Bennet, Whitehouse, Baldwin, Murphy, Warren
Conference started afternoon of 11/18, concluded less than 24 hours later
15
CONFERENCE
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ESEA
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 16
MESSAGING FROM COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP
This is a compromise – it’s not what any of them would have designed on their own, but: Need to update now
This is better than current law
Senate Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander: “I'll take 80% of what I want and save the other 20% for another day.“
Conference passed “framework” with a vote of 39-1
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 17
WHAT’S IN THE BILL?
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 18
THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT
ECAA+ SSA
= ESSA
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 19
THE BASICS
Based on the Senate bill (S. 1177)
Keeps broad outlines/structure of ESEA, i.e.: States set standards
If schools fall below standards, intervention required
Use of standardized testing, subgroups
Hands over more authority to States, but keeps “strong federal guardrails”
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 20
WHAT’S THE STANDARD?
No mandate to adopt “college- and career-ready” standards and assessments Instead, use “challenging” State-designed standards
Secretary cannot mandate/incentivize specific standards or assessments
Eliminates Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) or mandate to achieve specific targets
Progress measured against student test scores Testing in grades 3-8 and once in high school
Disaggregate achievement data by subgroup
Caps alternate assessments at 1% of overall assessments
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 21
INTERVENTIONS
State-developed accountability systems School ratings must include academic
indicators (grad rates in high schools), measures of school quality Academic indicators must count “much more” than
other indicators But otherwise ratios largely up to States
Requires 95% participation in tests to be a factor in accountability But explicitly waivable
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 22
INTERVENTIONS
Must design and carry out interventions in:
Lowest-performing 5% of schools
Schools with largest achievement gaps between subgroups (consistently underperforming subgroups for number of years as determined by the State)
High schools with graduation rates lower than 2/3rds
State must reserve 7% of Title I funds (OR FY 2016 reservation + FY 2016 SIG amount) for school improvement activities (subgrants to LEAs), and another 3% for “direct student services”
No requirement for SES, but LEAs may provide choice and transportation (up to 5% of funding)
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 23
TITLE I MECHANICS
Rank and Serve LEA may lower 75% poverty threshold
to 50% for high schools Also keeps 35% discretion
New option to estimate poverty for secondary schools
Schoolwide programs Maintains 40% threshold
But school below 40% poverty rate may receive a waiver from the State to operate a schoolwide program
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 24
FUNDING
Will use existing Title I formula Amendment in conference will require IES to
study formula and possible alternatives
Title II formula will transition through 2020 to focus more on poverty
Allows up to 50 district-level weighted student funding pilots under Title I
Maintains supplement not supplant and maintenance of effort requirements But tweaks to supplement not supplant
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 25
TEACHER QUALITY
Eliminates Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) requirements But report cards still must include
professional qualifications of teachers
Local plans must address disparities
States have choice of including standardized test scores in evaluations
Title II retains Teacher Incentive Fund, STEM Master Teacher Fund, money for school leader recruitment and support
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 26
PROGRAM ELIMINATION/ CONSOLIDATION
What’s out: School Improvement Grants Race to the Top Investing in Innovation Reading First Advanced Placement Physical Education School Counseling Education Technology
*** this is a PARTIAL list***
What’s in: New Local Academic Flexible
Grant Charter schools grant 21st Century Promise Neighborhoods Impact Aid Parent Engagement Preschool Development
Grant Gifted and Talented Title III Migrant Education
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 27
CORE WELL-ROUNDED
Changes “core academic subjects” to “a well-rounded education”
Includes courses, activities, and programming in: English, reading or
language arts, writing science, technology,
engineering, mathematics,
computer science, foreign languages, civics and
government, economics,
arts, music history, geography, career and technical
education, health, physical
education, and others as designated
by State/LEA
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 28
SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
Strictly prohibit Secretary from doing anything to: Require/incentivize certain standards or assessments
Deny approval of State plans without good reason
Deny approval of waivers without good reason
Set new criteria through regulation or requiring adoption of certain policies in exchange for flexibility
Specify pieces of accountability system (beyond what’s set out in law)
Issue non-regulatory guidance that
provides a “strictly limited or exhaustive list” to illustrate successful implementation, or
that purports to be legally binding
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 29
TIMING
States’ waivers will expire on August 1, 2016 But continue supporting “priority” and “focus” schools
until new law kicks in Most formula programs under new law July 1, 2016
Impact Aid under new law October 1, 2016 Title I
Current assessments may remain in place through August 1, 2016
School ratings and interventions start with school year 2017-18
Competitive programs under new law October 1, 2016
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 30
HURDLES
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 31
WHAT ARE THE HURDLES AHEAD?
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 32
PARTY POLITICS
Limited Democratic opposition
Lack of bipartisan cooperation in drafting?
Concerns about assessments/accountability
Conservative Republican Opposition Bill doesn’t go far enough in opposing common core
Bill doesn’t do enough to pull back on federal role
Lack of Title I Portability (said House bill didn’t go far enough; wanted to use funds in private schools)
Money for early childhood (too many programs already?)
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 33
THE HOUSE’S MATH PROBLEM
Bills need 218 of 435 votes to pass in the House
By the numbers: Democrats: 188
Republicans: 246
House Freedom Caucus (HFC) Republicans (estimated): 36
Other Republicans: 210
Need majority of Republicans (the Hastert Rule)
But ultimately passes bill 359-64 (all “no” votes conservative Republicans)
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 34
THE SENATE’S CALENDAR PROBLEM
To do before the end of the year: Appropriations (CR
expires December 11th)
Tax extenders bill (December 31st)
Energy bill
Transportation bill
…and ESEA???
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 35
WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC © 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 36
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 client-lawyer 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.