Both the House and Senate have passed bills
out of committee that positively address the
major flaws of current law.
 Both bills are to be commended for pushing
the pendulum of control of education back
firmly to state and local education agencies
 Where there are departures, know that the
House goes even further to return control to
the state/local level.
 Both bills represent a strong step in the right
direction.






Eliminate AYP, AMO, SES,
and 100% proficiency
Both return control of
assessments and
accountability to the
states
Both maintain math and
ELA testing requirements
Both continue data
disaggregation
Reauthorize REAP
Promote growth models
and multiple measures
 Include computer
adaptive assessment
 Adjust 1 and 2 percent
caps
 Require 4 year adjusted
cohort graduation rate
and allow states to
calculate 5 and 6 year
rates










School Improvement: House gives authority to state; Senate bill
prescribes turnaround models that must be used in bottom 5%
of schools
HQT: House bill eliminates HQT; Senate bill retains it
Maintenance of Effort: House bill eliminates MoE; Senate bill
retains it
Comparability: House bill makes no changes; Senate proposes
changes to calculation
Teacher Evaluation: House bill requires eval systems for all 50
states; Senate bill requires it only in states that pursue put of
funding
Funding Flexibility: House bill provides funding flexibility
between special population programs; Senate bill does not
extend flexibility
Class Size Reduction: House bill caps it at 10%; Senate bill
makes no change
Ed Tech: House bill eliminates Ed Tech; Senate bill reauthorizes
Ed Tech program
RttT and i3: Senate bill codifies RttT and i3 as law

House Committee
› Maintenance of
Effort
› Funding Cap
› Charter Schools
› Equitable
Participation

Senate Committee
› Comparability
› Charter Schools
› Foster Children
› RttT and i3

o
o


To date, more than half (26) of the states have
received ESEA waivers from the administration
First Round Waivers were granted to all 11
applicants: CO, FL, GA, IN, KY, MA, MN, NJ, NM,
OK and TN
Second Round Waivers were granted to 15 of 26
applicants: AR, CT, DE, LA, MD, MO, NY, NC, OH,
RI, SD, UT, VA, WA and WI
Seven additional states (AL, AK, ID, IA, KS, ME,
and WV) are able to freeze their AMOs while
they work on their waiver applications.
A third and final round of applications will be
submitted after Labor Day.







Senate bill (S.2020) introduced Dec 2011 by
Harkin
Prohibited for special-ed and gen-ed students
Prohibited from being including in IEP
Mandates huge data reporting and
collection
Only can be used if child is at risk of causing
“serious bodily injury”
Conflicts with 31 state law re “reasonable and
necessary force” provisions
FAPE denied if used inappropriately






97% of school districts do not use mechanical restraints under
any circumstances
94% of school districts monitor students when they are in
seclusion at all times
97% of school districts have a policy to end the use of
seclusion and restraint as soon as the emergency ends
Of the students that are restrained or secluded, 66% of
districts reported they exclusively use these techniques on
students with severe emotional or behavioral disabilities
80% of all school personnel trained to use seclusion and
restraint are also trained in nonviolent crisis intervention
techniques
78% of school personnel are trained in seclusion and restraint
or nonviolent crisis interventions at least annually


16% respondents said they use S/R to punish
students
19% of respondents support using S/R
techniques to punish students
These techniques must be used exclusively in
emergency situations.
AND, of course, WE NEED MONEY!
91% of respondents said their school district would benefit
from Safe and Drug Free Funding to implement school-wide
positive behavioral support and intervention systems and
nonviolent crisis interventions.




Rural Education Achievement Program
reauthorized in both House and Senate bills
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self
Determination Act (Forest Counties)
received a one-year extension on the
Transportation bill.
There is a Rural Education Caucus in both
the House and Senate. If you are from a
rural community, make sure your Reps and
Senators are on the caucus!
Support the creation of the Office of Rural
Education Policy within the U.S. Dept. of Ed.

ESEA
› Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT, Title II
Part D) is in current law but has been zero funded.
› The Senate ESEA bill includes an education technology
program; the House bill does not.

E-Rate:
› Help us raise awareness. Significant staff turnover on
the hill means there is less awareness of what E-Rate is,
how it benefits schools, and the critical role E-Rate
plays in helping schools afford telecommunications.

E-Learning Caucus
› The House JUST launched an e-learning caucus. While
it was created around virtual learning, the scope will
be broad and will include education technology, ERate, and more. Urge your Representative to join!
Budget Control Act
› Stems from Debt Ceiling Debate from Summer 2012
› Raised debt ceiling
› Created Super Committee
› By default, creates sequestration
› Required votes on balanced budget amendment
› Established spending caps for next ten years
› Established Super Committee
 Sequestration
› Sequestration triggered 1/1/12, Cuts go in to effect 1/1/13
› Estimated to be between a 7.8 and 9.1% cut
› Estimated Education Impact at 7.8% level:
 Title I: $1.1 billion
 IDEA: 978 million
 Perkins: $136 million
 Head Start: $590 million
› AASA survey and call to action!

Budgetary Impact
Reducing Professional Development
Reducing Academic Programs (enrichment, afterschool, intervention, etc)
Personnel Layoffs (non-instructional staff)
Response
69.4%
58.1%
56.6%
Increased Class Size
Personnel Layoffs (instructional staff)
54.9%
54.8%
Deferring Technology Purchases
Deferring Textbook Purchases
Deferring Maintenance
Eliminating Summer School Programs
Reducing Course Offerings
Reducing Extra-Curricular Activities
Shift Funding of Extracurricular Activities to
Families/Community/Boosters
Cutting Bus Transportation Routes/Availability
52.8%
38.0%
36.6%
34.6%
25.6%
25.6%
Personnel Furloughs
Closing/Consolidating Schools
8.6%
4.4%
20.2%
13.6%

The Obama Administration/Sec. Arne
Duncan:
› 45.4 non-existent.
› 34.9 poor/very poor.

Congress (in its entirety):
› 55.9 percent non-existent,
› 35.9 percent poor/very poor.

Respondent’s Congressional Delegation:
› 48.5 percent non-existent,
› 32 percent poor/very poor.

Senate and House Education Committees
and Appropriations Subcommittees:
› 53.1 percent non-existent
› 35.3 percent poor/very poor.

Your Governor:
› 50 percent non-existent,
› 27.7 percent poor/very poor.

Your Chief State School Officer:
› 33.3 percent non-existent,
› 23.2 percent poor/very poor.

Your State Legislature:
› 50.3 percent non-existent,
› 31.8 percent poor/very poor.

Your State Board of Education:
› 44.8 percent non-existent,
› 26.8 percent poor/very poor.
 American
Association of School
Administrators:
› 54.1 percent helpful/very
helpful.
 State Administrator Association
(AASA affiliate):
› 55.1 percent helpful/very
helpful.
FY13 appropriations process moves along, but the
House and Senate approaches are on completely
different tracks
 Senate budget level is set at BCA levels; House
budget level is significantly lower.
 Senate LHHS approps bill includes $100 m increase
for Title I and IDEA, level funds almost all others.
 House LHHS bill is being marked up today!
 Likely Scenario? Continuing Resolution thru the
election, if not into next year. Final appropriations
will be at BCA level. If there are increases, likely in
Title I and IDEA

 AASA
asked for:
› State control of accountability,
assessment and consequences
› Greater focus on content
› Greater flexibility in local program
control
 Both Houses and Senate Committees
included those policies in their bills
AASA has pointed out the terrible impact
of the great recession on public schools
 Last year the $10 billion in Ed Jobs
funding can be tracked directly to data
gathered by AASA
 AASA continually reminds Congress that
federal funding though relatively small is
very important to many school districts as
the great recession continues into its
fourth year

AASA asked that the unique conditions
of small rural school districts be
considered when any education
legislation is considered
 Small rural school districts have been
funded and considered in every
instance.

AASA successfully led efforts to oppose
the use of E-Rate dollars to fund a Digital
Literacy Pilot.
 AASA member comments helped end
FCC-support for administering the Pilot
through E-Rate capacity.
 AASA advocated for the inclusion of
education technology in the ESEA bills,
supporting ATTAIN in the Senate bill and
leading changes to the House bill.


AASA asked that states be given time to
develop bullying policy which
› Avoids the conflict in federal definition of
bullying
› Focuses on improved local policy and
practice rather than compliance with
federal rules

So far state policy has been allowed to
develop without new federal
requirements
AASA has succeeded in convincing
every Senate office to NOT SUPPORT
S.2020
 AASA’s reports on S/R were featured in
the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune,
USA Today and many other publications
 So far AASA has prevailed and state
policy is developing without impossibly
high new federal standards or new
compliance monitoring

In 92% of school districts, less than 10% of
the time school personnel are not
trained in how to use seclusion and
restraint
 78% of school personnel are trained in
seclusion and restraint or nonviolent crisis
interventions at least annually

Child Nutrition
 Charters
 Vouchers
 Bullying
 IDEA
 IDEA Funding
 Career/Tech

AASA
Website: www.aasa.org
AASA Blog: www.aasa.org/aasablog.aspx
AASA Twitter: @Noellerson @SPudelski
Annual Legislative Advocacy Conference
Weekly Update: Legislative Corps
Monthly Update: Advocacy Alert
Policy Insider
Bruce Hunter ([email protected])
 Noelle Ellerson ([email protected])
 Sasha Pudelski ([email protected])
