washington update

BILINGUAL, IMMIGRANT, AND REFUGEE EDUCATIONDIRECTORS’ MEETING

MAY 17, 2012

WASHINGTON UPDATE

WHAT WE’LL COVER:• BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS• CENSUS AND TITLE I UPDATES• ESEA REAUTHORIZATION• NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND WAIVERS

WASHINGTON UPDATE

BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS

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

Administration’s Proposed Budget – FY 2013(2013-14 School Year)

Title I Grants: FrozenTitle II-A Grants for Teacher Quality: FrozenTitle III Grants for ELLs: Frozen IDEA Part B Grants: FrozenSchool Improvement Grants: FrozenRace to the Top: $850 million proposed Investing in Innovation: $150 million proposed


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”


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


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


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


Program Total FY 2012Appropriation

Forward-Funded Portion of FY 2012 Percentage

Title I-A (Grants to LEAs) $14.5 billion $10.8 billion 74.7%

Title II-A (Teacher Quality) $2.5 billion $1.7 billion 68.2%

IDEA (Part B) $11.6 billion $9.3 billion 80.2%

Career/Tech (Perkins) $1.1 billion $791 million 70.4%

TOTAL $29.7 billion $22.6 billion 76.1%

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


Program Current Appropriation

9% Sequestration Amount Remaining

Title III-A $732 million $66 million $666 million

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

2009 CensusChildren Living in Poverty

2010 CensusChildren Living in Poverty

Miami-Dade 90,563 95,369

Nation 9,909,134 10,846,338

% of Nation 0.91% 0.88%


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

FY 2011Title I Grant (actual)

FY 2012Title I Grant (estimated)

Miami-Dade $129,282,400 $120,916,763


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

Actual FY 2011

Title I Allocation

Difference from 2011

in FY 2012


in FY 2013


in FY 2014


in FY 2015

Miami-Dade $129,282,400 -$418,400 -$2,350,900 -$5,187,600 -$9,300,800

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA)

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


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


Provisions in House and Senate LegislationSenate Bill: Program Authorizations

Title I • Part A – Grants to LEAs• SIG• National Assessment of

Educational Progress• State assessment grants

(Reserves up to 3% of Part A funds for National Activities)

• Part B – Pathways to College (high school reform)

• Part C –Migrant Programs• Part D – Neglected and

Delinquent Programs

Title II• Part A –Teachers/Leaders• Part A – Principal

Recruitment• Part B – Teacher Pathways• Part C – Teacher Incentive

Fund• Part D – Achievement

through Technology

Title III – English Learners

Title IV• Part A - Literacy Instruction• Part B –STEM Instruction• Part C – Successful, Safe and

Healthy Students

Title IV (continued)• Part C – Access to a Well-

Rounded Education• Part D – 21st Century Centers• Part E – Promise

Neighborhoods• Part F – Parent and Family

Info & Resource Centers• Part G – Ready to Learn TV• Part H – Programs of

National Significance

Title V• Part A -- Race to the Top• Part B -- Investing in

Innovation

Title V (continued)• Part C -- Magnet Schools• Part D -- Charter Schools• Part E - Voluntary Public

School Choice

Title VI• Part B - Rural Schools

Title VII• Part B – Indian, Native

Hawaiian, Alaskan Native Education

Title VIIII - Impact Aid


Provisions in House and Senate LegislationElements of State Accountability System

House

• Annually measure the academic achievement of all public schools students (may include growth measures)

• Annually evaluate and identify the academic performance of each public school (not just Title I), based on academic achievement and overall performance and achievement gaps of traditional NCLB subgroups, including English learners (unless insufficient statistically or personally identifiable)

• Implement school improvement system for low-performing schools with interventions• Prohibits the Secretary to establish any criteria on any aspect of the State accountability

system• Failure to meet requirements will result in withholding of State administration funds


Provisions in House and Senate LegislationSection 1116 Interventions

House

• Section 1116 is repealed


Provisions in House and Senate LegislationElements of State Accountability System

Senate

• Measure and report the academic achievement of all public schools and LEAs, and the graduation rates for high schools

• Requires continuous improvement for school, students and subgroups• Identifies schools and LEAs in need of intervention and support• Provides for improvement, interventions and supports for all schools identified as low-

performing or with low-performing subgroups, not otherwise identified as Achievement Gap or Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools under Sec. 1116

• Transition to new state-designed accountability system to be determined by the Secretary



Senate

• Achievement Gaps Schools: States must identify, including 5% of the public high schools and 5% of the elementary and other secondary schools with the largest achievement gaps among subgroups or the lowest performance among subgroups in relation to on-track student achievement and graduations rates

• Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools: States must identify, including 5% of the public high schools and 5% of the elementary and other secondary schools based on absolute student performance and where applicable on growth, and graduation rates



Senate

Required Reform Strategies (i.e. the models): - Transformational Strategy (including principal replacement) - Strategic Staffing Strategy (including principal replacement and a leadership team) - Turnaround Strategy (including principal replacement and at least 35% of staff) - Whole School Reform Strategy (designed by a developer with evidenced-based performance) - Restart Strategy - Closure Strategy - State-designed Reform Strategies



Senate

Choice Requirement:• Provide all students enrolled in a persistently lowest-achieving school with

the option to transfer to a non-identified school within three months of the first day of the school year following identification, and provide priority for low-achieving, low-income students

Supplemental Services (SES) Requirement:• Not included


Provisions in House and Senate LegislationEnglish Language Learners

House SenateEnglish Language Acquisition

Major changes• Authorized as a 4.4% reservation from the

Title I appropriation• New reporting requirements

Language and Academic Content Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students

Major changes• Clarifies that both increasing percentages

and numbers of immigrant children must be used in awarding these funds

• Requires Title III school level activities to be built into the regular school level plan or a separate Title III school activity plan

• New evaluation requirements



House SenateState Allocations• Based 80% on the number of English

learners and 20% on the number of immigrant children

• English learner data determined by the American Community Survey or State-reported data on the number of students assessed for English language proficiency, or a combination

• Immigrant data based on the American Community Survey

State Allocations• Based 80% on the number of English

learners and 20% on the number of immigrant children

• English learner data determined by the American Community Survey or State-reported data on the number of students assessed for English language proficiency

• Immigrant data based on the American Community Survey



House SenateWithin-State Allocation• Maintains current law including the 15%

state reservation for significant increases in the percentage or number of immigrant children

Within-State Allocation• Maintains current law including the 15%

state reservation for significant increases in the percentage or number of immigrant children, but clarifies that both increasing percentages and numbers of immigrant children must be used in awarding these funds



House SenateLocal Plans, Required and Authorized Activities• Basically maintained as in current law

Local Plans, Required and Authorized Activities• Requires two or more of the following:

increasing language proficiency through evidenced based language programs and content instruction, professional development, and focused activities to expand, enhance or supplement existing language and content instruction

• Requires Title III school level activities to be build into the regular school plan or a separate Title III school activity plan



House and Senate

Accountability Provisions and AMAOs

• Repealed in both the House and Senate bills



HouseNew Reporting RequirementsEstablished for each district on activities conducted and students served, including:• A description of progress made in learning English and meeting State standards• The number and percentage attaining English proficiency (on State’s ELPA)• The number of students exiting programs based on attainment of proficiency and transition

to classes not tailored for English learners• A description of the progress of English learners for 2 years after no longer receiving

services• The number and percentage of students not attaining English language proficiency in 5 yrs• Any other information required by the SEA

The Report will be used by the district and SEA to determine program effectiveness and improving the program



SenateNew Evaluation RequirementsEstablished for each district every two years, requiring:• A description of program activities• A description of progress made in learning English and meeting State standards• The number and percentage attaining English proficiency (State) ELPA and exiting students• A description of the progress of English learners for 3 years after no longer receiving

services• The number and percentage of students not attaining English language proficiency in 5 yrs

The Evaluation will be used by the district and SEA to determine program effectiveness in obtaining English proficiency and making progress in meeting State standards, and whether to continue funding specific programs or activities



Senate

• Establishes Commission on the Assessment of English Learners

• Parent Notification: Retains current provisions regarding language programs

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


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.


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


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 20122013 school year, that is likely to improve student achievement and school performance, close achievement gaps, and increase the quality of instruction for students?


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?


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


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.


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)


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)


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.

ANY QUESTIONS?

washington update

Documents