The Leading Edge

• FY14 Appropriations Allocations: The House Appropriations Committee approved its 302(b) allocations, the numbers that drive the final funding level for every program. This chart compares the FY14 302(b) allocations, calculated as a percentage cut relative to final FY13 302(b) allocations, FY13 post-sequester allocations, and the FY14 Democratic alternative. In the chart, the “FY13 Seq” numbers refer to what the subcommittee allocations are under sequestration. Please note that these numbers are evolving and that the numbers in the chart are not final numbers.
• Secretary Duncan Testifies Before House: USED Secretary Arne Duncan testified before the House Education and the Workforce Committee, speaking to the President's FY14 budget proposal. Related story.
• Secretary Duncan statement
• Chairman Kline statement
• Ranking Member Miller statement
• ESEA Waivers: Three more states (AK, HI, and WV) were approved for ESEA waivers. That brings the total to 37 states (38 including DC). Eight states have waivers requests under consideration (AL, IL, IA, ME, NH, PA, TX and WY) and five states have yet to submit an application (CA, MT, NE, ND (withdrawn) and VT (withdrawn)). Related story.

All the cool kids--that is, educators paying attention to the rapid pace at which the common assessments and overreliance on tests in teacher and school evaluation are detracting from the proper focus on student learning--are calling for a moratorium on testing.

It started more than a year ago, and included a call by Montgomery County Public School Superintendent Josh Starr. AASA issued a public note of appreciate on the blog yesterday.  

AASA's recent letter to the Senate HELP committee echoed a similar sentiment: Slow down, take the time to get it right.

AFT President Randi Weingarten called for a moratorium on the stakes associated with high-stakes testing because the new assessments aligned to Common Core are being given to student before teachers have had time to process and create curriculum to support the standards.

WhiteBoard Policy Advisors latest Education Insiders poll found that while only 18% of those polled think USED would implement a moratorium on the stakes associated with Common Core, 63% think that states will implement such a policy.  

Even Secretary Duncan and USED haven't ruled out the possibility of calling for a 'hold' on the Common Core stakes.

Before you read the funding update, some numbers to put it all in perspective. When talking about budget and appropriations, its good to keep the top line (overall budget authority) in mind. The following numbers are the budget authority for the LHHS appropriation (which includes education):

• FY13 Budget Authority (Pre-Sequester): $156.284 billion
• FY13 Budget Authority (Post Sequester): $149.64 billion
• President Obama's FY14 Budget Proposal: $165.8 billion
• House Budget Authority for FY14: $121.797 billion

That means the House FY14 proposal for LHHS is 18% BELOW FY13 post-sequester levels and 26% below what President Obama proposed for the same fiscal year.

FY13 Funding: The final charts for FY13 (post-sequester) state allocations are available for Title I and IDEA. These charts are crucial, especially since some states have been counseling cuts that are deeper than will be reality. Use these charts in conversations with your SEA. You can also see final program funding levels for all USED programs.

FY14 Funding:

• BAD NEWS! The House Appropriations Committee released its 302b allocations (these are the amounts that are available to each committee to fund their programs). The 302bs would mean a HUGE cuts to LHHS, which funds education. If the numbers in the related story are correct, this would represent an 18.7% cut below FY13 (post-sequester) levels. At the program level, that would mean $2.5 billion from Title I and $2 billion from IDEA, to name a few. 
• If there’s a silver lining, it is that this proposal is so crazy it won’t go much further than the House. In fact, it is unlikely the House itself could move all the appropriations bills through the traditional process.
• Part of the House budget proposal relies on the continuation of the sequester cuts while protecting defense. So, the House will be able to move through related appropriations bills relatively easy. When it comes time to those appropriations bills they haven’t protected, they will need to make deep, deep cuts. Remember, the total dollar amount didn’t change; they just limit the cuts to non-defense discretionary (including education).
• IMPORTANT Technical Note: While a continuing resolution is the likely end result for FY14, it would not be painless. In theory, the budget caps put in place thru the Budget Control Act included modest increases for each year. Unfortunately, the final FY13 CR is ABOVE the FY14 budget cap, meaning that we would have an across-the-board cut in the CR in addition to whatever cuts come from sequestration.
• The Senate is still planning to work under a budget of $1.058 trillion, significantly higher than the House level. This overall spending difference, plus the fact that the Senate resolves sequestration and the House does not, pretty much cement a CR.

This post comes from AASA Associate Executive Director for Advocacy & Communications, Bruce Hunter.

I am receiving an increasing number of inquiries related to final allocations for FY13, especially in the context of sequestration. A previous post detailed the IDEA allocations. I am now adding the Title I allocations. 

A handful of members had reached out detailing bizarre advice from state agencies detailing the depth of the cut. This chart should put to rest the question of what the state allocation is; local allocations are not yet available.  

AASA joined 50 other organizations--including the Association of Education Service Agencies, the National Rural Education Association and the National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition--in signing a letter opposing the elimination of Impact Aid Federal Properties (Section 8002) funding in the Administration’s FY 2014 budget request.

Read the letter.  

As mentioned on the blog last week, AASA sent an ESEA reauthorization priority letter to Senator Tom Harkin.

Diane Ravitch caught wind of the letter and featured it on her blog, in a post titled Outstanding Proposal About ESEA/NCLB by AASA.  She writes: 

The School Superintendents Association wrote a strong letter to Senator Tom Harkin about the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the basic federal legislation for elementary and secondary education, which is currently known as No Child Left Behind.

NCLB is generally recognized to be a disaster. The best evidence of its failure is the ever louder cries for “reform.” If NCLB had worked, why would we need more and more reforming, using the same failed methods?

AASA does not have kind words for Race to the Top and urges Congress not to codify it into law.

The AASA clears away the legislative debris, recognizes the over-reach of the federal Department of Education, recommends the removal of the claptrap associated with NCLB, and urges the restoration of a healthy federalism, with a balance of powers among federal, state, and local authorities.

A welcome dose of reality.

This weekend the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, the “bible” doctors and mental health professionals consult when determining diagnoses for students with disabilities, will be published with new definitions that could dramatically increase the number of students diagnosed as having a disability. Special education legal experts and psychiatrists are predicting that districts are going to see a large influx of parents seeking IEPs and Section 504 plans due to some of the changes related to autism, ADHD, bi-polar disorder, and PTSD diagnoses found in the new DSM guide.

Specifically, the DSM-5 is expected to stop recognizing Asperger’s as a unique diagnosis and instead stop differentiating between students with more mild autism and students with more moderate and sever autism. Some predict this change could result in students who may not have qualified for services before because they were at the very high-functioning end of the spectrum may now qualify for services with a mild case under the ASD umbrella. However, others say that it will have little impact because if a child with mild autism no longer qualifies as ASD, their disability can be classified as “other health impairment.” It’s possible that changes in the criteria will mean students with Aspergers, whose “autistic-ness” included mostly problems with communication without the presence of repetitive behaviors, may be reevaluated and perhaps receive a diagnosis of a communication disorder instead of an autism spectrum disorder. It’s important to remember that there is a big difference between a medical diagnosis of autism and an educational definition of autism. Even if a child loses their medical diagnosis of autism that does not mean they lose their IEP or even that they can’t still use the disability category of autism in their IEP. IDEA has a federal definition of autism and each State has an even more specific definition of Autism built into their education code and it is much easier to meet the definition of a child with autism in the educational setting then in the medical setting.

In the case of ADHD, the new criteria allow children to receive the diagnosis if they show signs of the disorder before age 12 — instead of the previous age of 7 which is an expansion of the definition of ADHD. The change means students have more time to demonstrate their ADHD symptoms than in the past. In response to concerns about the overdiagnosis of bipolar disorder in young children, the DSM-5 is expected to feature the new diagnosis of disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. This would apply to kids ages 6-18 who three or more times a week have temper tantrums that are grossly out of proportion in intensity or duration to their situation. The new definition could lead to more students qualifying for disruptive mood dyregulation disorderd. Finally, a change in how stress related to bereavement is classified could mean a student who is experiencing normal grief over the death of a parent could now be diagnosed with PTSD.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed an amendment to their comprehensive immigration bill that would take money collected on fees for labor certifications and direct these dollars towards a new STEM fund that would be distributed to states based on their Title I allocation. The governors and chiefs of each state could then determine how to invest in STEM programming, but the funding must be used to 1) strengthen computer science, 2) ensure schools have access to well-trained and effective STEM teachers, 3) support efforts to strengthen the elementary and secondary curriculum or 4) and help colleges and universities produce more graduates in fields needed by American employers. The STEM fund is anticipated to be funded at approximately $90 million annually, and would not be subject to appropriations. This STEM fund would be in addition to the roughly $30 million in STEM demonstration grants available directly to districts working with public/private partnerships through the National Sciences Foundation. While it’s unclear whether the House will adopt a similar STEM fund during its work on immigration, AASA is generally supportive of the Senate amendment that creates a new funding stream for STEM in schools, even though the low funding level prohibits this money from being distributed via formula to districts.

When it comes to sequestration, there is nothing new to report. While the FAA was able to get flexibility to softern the impact of the cuts on its employment patterns, no further action has been taken or considered for other aspects of the federal budget. This may be a case of 'no news is good news'. ProPublica recently released Everything We Know About What Happened Under Sequestration. It reads like a Q&A conversation, and gives a really good overview of how we got here and what is (not) going on right now. For education in particular, it focuses on the impact on Head Start and Impact Aid.

For the annual appropriations process, while both the House and Senate have passed budgets, there is little momentum for a budget conference. The Senate, having passed a budget for the first time in four years, is perplexed as to why the House Republicans--so wedded to normal order in the budget process and urging the Senate to pass a budget--are now slow to move forward with normal order, only interested in a conference with pre-established parameters. No need to be alarmed; there wasn't a conference in the years the Senate didn't pass a budget, and the world carried on.

As for appropriations, both the House and Senate are expected to start marking up appropriations bills in June. Don't look for either chamber to mark up the LHHS appropriation bill (where education is funded) until late in the summer. As it stands right now, the drastic differences in the House and Senate budgets (including the treatment of sequestration and variance in overall spending) put us on a path toward a continuing resolution. It is highly unlikely that Congress will be able to wrap their work in time for the start of FY14 (Oct 1), especially as it related to needing to reconcile the differences between the budget proposals. It's kind of par for the course, though: you can count on less than three fingers the number of times Congress has wrapped its appropriations work on time since 1983.

In follow up to last week's post on the House ESEA hearing and what that might mean for ESEA reauthorization, a few more items: 

• There is serious momentum, in both the House and Senate, to move ESEA. Both chambers are expected to release their legislative proposals in early June, and to move through committee in the same month. Both chambers are working from the bills they respectively passed out of committee in 2011. The biggest change is that the very fragile bi-partisan support for the Senate bill has stalled; bipartisan conversations between Senators Harkin and Alexander stalled last week, in what is being called an 'amicable parting'.
• Senate: The bipartisan talks stalled, in large part, over performance targets. In a meeting with HELP staff on Friday, they indicated the legislation will be 'virtually identical' to the 2011 bill. We need to see the legislation before we can fully believe that. The waivers significantly changed the ESEA landscape, including the conversation about performance targets. AASA weighed in with the HELP committee, sending a letter expressing our concerns/priorities for ESEA reauthorization as they relate to the 2011 bill and changes the committtee may be considering.
• House: Budget Committee Chairman Ryan is digging deeper in to education policy, including ESEA, as part of a broader conversation around 'upward mobility'. The discussions are still very preliminary, and not in conjunction with ESEA reauthorization through the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Yesterday, the House Education and the Workforce Committee held a hearing titled Raising the Bar: Exploring State and Local Efforts to Improve Accountability.

Two of the four witnesses are currently school superintendents: AASA member and Minnesota 2012 Superintendent of the Year Chris Richardson (Northfield, MN) and Mr. Eric Gordon (Cleveland, OH Metropolitan Schools). The other witnesses included Mr. John White (Louisiana State Schools Chief) and Mr. Matt Given (Edison Learning).

True to the title of the hearing, most of the statements and the member questioning focused on what the balance should be in state and local leadership in accountability. There was consensus that the current federally  heavy-handed approach in accountability is broken. It's clear from the conversation, however, that the committee itself remains far apart on how much autonomy states and locals should have. A case of deja vu, if you will.

Questions arose around vouchers, early education, school-based health care and 'total child', but the bulk of the dialogue was about what accountability can/should look like, and recognition that while the waivers currently represent the best available avenue for relief from current law, the waivers are far from the best overall solution.....that remains reauthorization.

Look for a bill/mark up in June and the possibility of floor time later this summer. We've heard that all before, though: the big question is what type of bill will the committee move? A bipartisan bill out of committee? A partisan bill through committee and to the floor?

Witness Statements

Related coverage: Politics K12

A new report investigates what states are doing to phase out the 2% test otherwise known as the Alternate Assessment based on Modified Achievements Standards or AA-MAS.  (ESEA) allowed states to apply for approval to create a test that would be given to up to two percent of students based on modified achievement standards as long as these students had an IEP and were unlikely to achieve grade level proficiency within the year covered by the IEP. Any state that currently used the AA-MAS test was forced to drop the test if they wished to be granted an ESEA waiver and a new report by the National Center on Educational Outcomes details how twelve states (CT, GA, IN, KS, LA, MD, MI, MN, NC, OK, TN, and VA) are phasing out their AA-MAS test.

According to the authors of the report, it appears that a few states are unclear about which assessment some students who currently take the AA-MAS would be shifting to, but it is likely almost all students who participated in the AA-MAS will transition to the general assessment, with or without accommodations.  In the meantime, States will need to consider when they want to discontinue use of the AA-MAS, and then develop appropriate timelines as well as whether they want to totally phase out the use of the AA-MAS, or whether they want to continue to use the high school AA-MAS for graduation requirements.

Here are a few of th report's other findings:

• Nine states indicated that they plan to provide professional development that will help educators develop skills they need to more successfully instruct and assess low performing students with disabilities
• Two-thirds of the states indicated that they plan to provide technical assistance that will help transition this group of students to the new common core state standards (CCSS) and assessment systems
• Six of the states (Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, and Tennessee) mentioned how they were working with their consortium (either PARCC or SBAC) to develop the new assessment system for these students
• Four states (Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, and Tennessee) mentioned that they would be using principles of Universal Design or Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as they developed the new assessment system
• Three states (Maryland, Oklahoma, and Tennessee) specifically discussed the need to ensure that students who participated in the AA-MAS have access to grade-level content. In addition, these states indicated that they were going to re-do the IEPs of students who were participated in the AA-MAS to determine which assessment (1% or 99%) would be appropriate.

In ,marked-up verisons of ESEA last year, the House and Senate had different approaches to the AA-MAS. The Senate base bill discontinued the use of the 2% test, but there was a hotly debated amendment by  Sen. Isakson that would have allowed the IEP team to decide what assessment a student should take (regular, 2% or 1%) and not capped the number of students who could take each test. In contrast, the House did away with the 2% test, but lifted the cap for the 1% test or AA-AAS so that the IEP team would determine whether a student could take the assessment and not cap the number of students at 1%.  AASA strongly supported the House's approach as well as Sen. Isakson's amendment. In light of the fact that GA received a waiver and is phasing-out the AA-MAS test, we do not anticipate Sen. Isakson being interested in this issue again this session.

Late last week, Thomas Vilsack (Secretary of Agriculture) and Arne Duncan (Secretary of Education) sent the following letter to school adminsitrators, relating to summer meal programs:

Dear Colleague:

We are writing to urge you to take action on an important issue affecting children in your community. Childhood food insecurity remains at unacceptable levels across the country and children are most acutely at risk in the summer when they do not have access to school meals. The nation’s principals have a lead role in caring for students and helping them achieve and excel during the school year. Your leadership can help to ensure that those same children do not go hungry in your community this summer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) operates summer meal programs to address this problem, and we are requesting your help to make access to and participation in summer meals a priority.

The USDA Summer Meal Programs available to schools include the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) as well as the Seamless Summer Option in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). These programs operate as a partnership among the Federal government, State agencies, and local organizations to serve free meals to children age 18 years and younger. USDA provides reimbursement for meals; State agencies administer the program; and local organizations, including schools, nonprofits, parks and recreation departments, libraries, and faith-based groups serve the meals.

In 2012, about 2.5 million children received summer meals through the SFSP. And while an additional 1 million children received meals through the NSLP Seamless Summer program, the combined 3.5 million children served in the summer months through these two programs is far fewer than the 21 million children who receive free or reduced price lunches through the National School Lunch Program during the school year. This means that during the summer we are not reaching the vast majority of children who rely on school meals to meet their nutritional needs. You can help change this by:

• Providing children in your community with meals at your school this summer. Local schools are the best sites for summer feeding efforts. Children and parents are familiar with local schools and schools are known for providing nutritious food in a safe environment. Even if your school will not be offering summer programming, if it is located in a low-income area it can be a summer feeding site and fill that important meal gap for your students this summer so that they are ready to learn when they return to school in the fall. 
• Asking teachers and staff in your school to share information about nearby summer meal sites, whether the sites are at your school or at other locations in your community. Principals can find local feeding sites by calling 1-866-3-HUNGRY or 1-877-8-HAMBRE or visiting www.whyhunger.org/findfood. Schools communicate regularly and effectively with the families of children in your community. You can help reach out and connect these families with summer meals before the school year ends and continue to make a difference in the lives of your students even after the school year ends.

You can learn more about the USDA Summer Meal Programs by visiting: www.summerfood.usda.gov.

These programs need champions. Please help us feed more children in your community when school is not in session by being a champion for summer meals. Thank you, as always, for your dedication and commitment to our children.

A little Friday fun wrap-up, with a set of charts detailing federal education funding, all adjusted to reflect sequestration and the small across-the-board cut stemming from the final FY13 appropriations bill.

• Updated CEF Chart
• USED Final FY13 program funding levels
• USED FY13 IDEA State Grants state allocation

A HUGE thank you to AASA members and advocacy networks. Your outreach and support for Dan's nomination to the USAC board proved successful. Earlier this week we learned that his nomination was accepted. This means Dan now holds a seat on the USAC board, serving as the voice for public schools and libraries on the committees that represent E-Rate within the FCC and USAC. The number of letters submitted on Dan's behalf was overwhelming to the staff reviewing applications and nominations, and they were critical in bolstering his acceptance. Thank you, all, for taking the time so submit letter! 

Senator Harry Reid filed legislation that would repeal the FY13 cuts of sequestration. The legislation pays for the cuts using funds from the reduced costs of the Afghan and Iraqi wars. While Reid would like to get a vote on the bill this week, it isn't expected to pass, as the Republicans don't recognize the war savings as 'real'. The bill would restore the cuts for the remaining five months of sequestration. The bill operates on the premise that Congress will be <somehow!> be able to do in those five months something they have been unwilling/unable to do in the last 24.

USAC, the entity that oversees the E-Rate (Schools and Libraries Program) within the FCC recently released the 2013 demand letter.  Demand in 2013 (for funds available through June 2013) is $4.986 billion, well beyond the available $2.34 billion. The FCC received 45,189 applications.

Demand for Priority One Services (telecommunications services and Internet Access) came in at $2.709 billion. Priority Two Services (Internal Connections) demand totaled $2.277 billion. Overall demand for FY13 is down $251 million (4.8%) from FY12. Demand for Priority One Services is up more than 10%. Demand for Priority Two Services is down 18.5%.

So, if demand is down, does that mean schools have what they need in terms of connectivity? NO! The reality is that applicants have come to recognize that P2 services are rarely available to schools outside of the 90% discount. As such, knowing the limits on available funding, schools outside of the top discount band do not submit a P2 application, as it represents unnecessary paperwork. As we have long argued, demand for E-Rate is likely consistently artificially low, as schools choose not to pursue P2 applications because they know it won't be funded.

Student health and wellness is a hot topic in Washington as well as in state capitals across the country. In the spring edition of the AASA Legislative Trends Report, we explore trends in state laws related to physical education, child nutrition, epinephrine auto-injectors, diabetes management and concussions.

Click here to read it: http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Sample/2013SpringLegTrendsHealthWellness.pdf

Last week, AASA sent a letter to the House and Senate LHHS-Education appropriations subcommittees. These are the committees that will deliberate and determine the final FY14 funding levels for federal education dollars.

The letter reiterates AASA's commitment to public education and the prioritization of formula federal dollars (including Title I and IDEA). The letter is in conjunction with AASA's response to President Obama's FY 14 budget request. 

AASA submitted specific program funding levels for Title I, IDEA, rural education, school safety and education technology. Please note: AASA supports continued investment in existing, authorized programs, including many of those programs not specifically mentioned in the letter. The letter highlights funding priorities. 

Excerpts below (full text here):

AASA urges your committees to fund ESEA Title I Part A at $15 billion in FY14 and to fund IDEA Grants to States at $12 billion.

• These funding levels represent an investment in the federal government’s premier K12 education policies, flexible, formula programs designed to support school efforts to provide increased educational opportunity to all students, to support student learning. 
• Congress is authorized to fund 40% of the additional cost of educating students with special needs. By providing $12 billion for IDEA in FY14, Congress would bump the federal contribution from 15.8% to 15.95% (of the authorized 40%). While this is still below the recent high mark of 18% in 2005, it is a key reversal in an otherwise downward trend in the federal share, and a marked improvement from the 14.9% share in FY13.

School Safety: AASA recommends Congress authorize and appropriate the proposed $280 million from the President’s FY14 budget into the former Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, a formula-driven program administered by the U.S. Department of Education that enables every school district to improve its climate, safety and mental health programs.

Rural Education: AASA recommends Congress fund the Rural Education Achievement Program at $200 million. Funding REAP at this level would help rural districts overcome the additional costs associated with their geographic isolation, smaller number of students, higher transportation and employee benefit costs, and increased poverty. An increase in REAP funding would help offset not only the impact of formula cuts for small rural districts, but also the impacts of the increased emphasis on competitive grants in federal education funding.

Education Technology: Currently, outside of the funds provided by USED for creation of the online state assessments related to Common Core, the ONLY federal funding related to education technology comes from the Federal Communication Commission and helps schools afford telephone and internet connection. While ESEA Title II Part D authorizes funding for education technology and professional development, the program has been zero-funded. The lack of this funding means schools have had zero support in expanding school infrastructure and teacher training for truly integrating education technology into all aspects of teaching and learning. This is an unfair reality as learning becomes increasingly digitized, putting unprecedented and ever-growing demand on system and personnel capacity. AASA recommends restoring funding for ESEA Title II Part D at $269 million, its 2009 level.

After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary school, AASA's Executive Committee and Governing Board put forth a white paper outlining how the federal government could support efforts to make and keep schools and communities safer and healthier. AASA was hopeful that some of the federal funding recommendations outlined in the document would be mirrored in the President's FY14 budget that was released last week. We found there were several areas of overlap between what AASA recommended funding and what the President proposed; however, the investment suggested by President Obama is fairly low compared to the federal allocations were devoted to school safety, climate and  mental health services in the past. To read AASA's response to the section of the President's budget focused on school safety, climate and mental health, click here.

Fiscal Year 2010 was the last time Congress appropriated significant funding to improve school safety, school climate and student mental health supports. In FY10, the U.S. Department of Education’s Safe and Drug Free Schools grant program for communities was funded at $295 million dollars; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Safe Schools Healthy Students program was funded at $84.2 million dollars, and the U.S. Department of Justice’s COPS Safe Schools Initiative Program and Secure our Schools Grant program were funded at $2.6 and $16 million respectively. In total, this represents a federal investment to ensure safe and healthy schools and students of close to $400 million dollars. President Obama’s FY14 budget requests $280 million for a host of initiatives related to school safety, school climate and mental health that are distributed through USED, HHS and DOJ. While AASA appreciates the Administration’s renewed desire to invest in school safety, school climate and mental health, we believe that to truly improve the facilities, programs, and people working to maintain healthy and safe environments, we need to restore our investment to FY10 levels. Congress and the Administration’s refusal to restore formula grants to districts means that districts will be forced to compete against one another to access funds, rather than automatically receive federal funding through a formula grant program. The fragmented nature of multiple grant programs administered by multiple agencies will disadvantage high-poverty, small, and rural districts, many of which could desperately use these additional funds to maintain or enhance school safety, climate and mental health services. AASA recommends Congress authorize and appropriate the proposed $280 million from the President’s FY14 budget into the former Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, a formula-driven program administered by the U.S. Department of Education that enables every school district to improve its climate, safety and mental health programs.

To read AASA's detailed response to the President's budget proposal specific to school safety, climate and mental health supports, click here. To read AASA's comprehensive response to the President's FY14 budget as a whole, click here.

In February 2012, a report by the Equity and Excellence Commission argued that systemic changes to the funding of America’s schools are necesssary to improve educational outcome for children in low-income schools and ensure our country’s future economic prosperity. This report is an excellent read and the Commission’s recommendations regarding teacher recruitment, retention and evaluation were particularly astute as well as their recommendations regarding early learning and school finance. For example: the Commission recommends that the federal government enact equity legislation that targets significant new federal funding to schools with high concentrations of low-income students and provides significant financial incentives to states that concentrate dollars in communities with high percentages of low-income, minority and low-performing students. In response to this report, the nation’s premier civil rights coalition, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, issued a set of policy recommendations for what can and must be done at the federal, state and local level to improve equity in education. While AASA disagrees with some of their recommendations, several recommendations are worthy of further discussion and consideration:

• Congress should create a dedicated funding stream to high poverty high schools to remedy the disparity in federal education funding between elementary and secondary schools. At the same time, Congress should increase funds for ESEA and Perkins that target resources to students and communities most in need.
• Compliance reviews should be directed towards states and districts with persistent disparities in per-pupil spending and specific resources that are associated with low achievement, poor high school completion rates, and school segregation.
• The Secretary should develop a “Race to the Top” grant program for states that demonstrate they are committed to implementing the school finance equity provisions outlined in the Equity and Excellence Commission report.
• Congress should reauthorize ESEA and continue to hold schools and LEAs responsible for student outcomes; and as a condition of receiving federal funds, require states to address inequities in funding among school districts within the states.

I’m particularly interested in your feedback on the last bullet point. How would you feel about a federal mandate that required states to address inequalities in funding among school districts within states? Feel free to shoot me an email with your thoughts: spudelski@aasa.org

From our friends at Rebuild America's Schools:

• The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget includes proposals to build on the successful Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB), Qualified School Construction Bond (QSCB) and Build America Bond (BAB) programs to create America Fast Forward Bonds for Infrastructure and for School Construction. The proposed America Fast Forward Bonds for School Construction will complement the support provided by over $11 billion of Qualified School Construction Bonds used by school districts in 49 states in 2010-2011 to build, renovate and repair schools. School districts in many states have also used Build America Bonds to modernize schools. 
• America Fast Forward Bonds for School Construction would support local school projects providing a 50-percent Federal subsidy rate for School Construction bonds saving the local school districts and community’s substantial costs for school bonds underwriting school construction, renovation and repair projects. The proposed America Fast Forward School Construction Bonds would be for 2014 and 2015. America Fast Forward Bonds proposed for other infrastructure projects including roads, bridges and pipelines would be permanent. 
• Eligible uses would be: (1) original financings for governmental capital projects for public schools and state universities; and (2) new money financings for section 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational entities, such as nonprofit schools and nonprofit universities that could use qualified section 501(c)(3) bonds. 
• The Treasury Department would make direct payments (through refundable tax credits) to State and local governmental issuers in an amount equal to 50 percent of the coupon interest on the bonds.
• The Administration’s Budget proposal for the America Fast Forward Bonds for School Construction and for Infrastructure tracks the Senate Budget Resolution support for infrastructure. The Budget Resolution adopted by the Senate includes a $100 billion package targeting infrastructure to rebuild roads, bridges and schools to create jobs. \
• RAS is continuing to work with Congressman Charles Rangel and Senator Jay Rockefeller on the re-introduction of the Rebuilding America’s Schools Act to extend and make permanent the Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) and Qualified School Construction Bond (QSCB) Programs.
• Rebuild America’s Schools will work with the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee for the permanent extension and school tax credit bond programs such as QZABS, QSCBs, and BABs and for the enactment of the Administration’s America Fast Forward Bonds as the Congress and the Administration begin work on tax reform.
• The need for federal School Facility bond programs such QZABs, QSCBs, BABs and the proposed America Fast Forward Bonds exists in every state as local communities are struggling to provide their students modern school facilities that meet current health, safety and educational standards. 
• As noted in the last Rebuild America’s Schools update the Center for Green Schools at the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) “State of our Schools” report estimates that schools are currently facing a $271 billion deferred maintenance bill just to bring the buildings up to working order. – approximately $5,450 per student. The USGBC report also estimated that the cost to both bring schools into good repair and address modernization needs is $542 billion over the next 10 years for Pre-K-12 school buildings.

Late yesterday, USED issued a letter to all chief state school officers related to waivers from the Title I 15% carryover limitation. The full text is below.

In a nutshell, the letter states that USED will allow states to apply for a blanket waiver so they can grant LEAs flexibility to carryover more than 15% of their FY12 Title I funds, in recognition of the impact of sequestration. Specifically, it allows a waiver to be granted more than once every three years, which is the current statutory limit.

Note: USED even provided a template letter states can use in application.

MEMORANDUM
Date: April 11, 2013
To: Chief State School Officers
From: Deborah S. Delisle
Assistant Secretary
Subject: Waiver related to the Carryover Limitation in Section 1127(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).

I am writing with respect to Section 1127(a) of the ESEA, which prohibits a local education agency (LEA) from carrying over to the next fiscal year more than 15 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation. Section 1127(b) permits a State education agency (SEA) to waive this limitation once every three years if: (1) the LEAs request is reasonable and necessary; or (2) a supplemental Title I, Part A appropriation becomes available. The uncertainty faced by LEAs concerning the amount of its Federal fiscal year (FY) 2013 Title I, Part A allocation due to the possibility of sequestration may be a reasonable and necessary reason for an SEA to grant an LEA a waiver of the carryover limitation with regard to Federal fiscal year (FY) 2012 Title I, Part A funds.

I believe it is important that each SEA ensure that its LEAs obligate their Title I, Part A funds in a timely manner. At the same time, I am aware of the enormous need to provide continued support for meaningful education reform and the need to offer flexibility to an SEA to enable its LEAs to conserve its remaining FY 2012 funds. This method carries additional benefits by allowing LEAs to use FY 2012 funds in combination with FY 2013 funds to support activities that might otherwise be affected by an FY 2013 Title I, Part A allocation that is reduced by the sequester.

Accordingly, under the waiver authority in ESEA Section 9401, I am inviting each SEA to request a waiver of ESEA Section 1127(b) to enable the SEA to waive the carryover limitation more than once every three years for an LEA that needs the additional waiver because of the sequestration with respect to FY 2012 Title I, Part A funds. To request this waiver, an SEA must:

• Identify the specific Federal program affected by the waiver — i.e., Title I, Part A; 
• Identify the statutory requirement to be waived — i.e., ESEA section 1127(b);
• Describe how the waiver will enable the SEA to grant LEAs the flexibility to use the funds that are carried over after September 30, 2013 to increase the quality of instruction for students, improve their academic achievement, and continue to assist the same populations served by the programs for which the waiver is being requested in accordance with applicable program requirements; and
• Hold schools and LEAs accountable based on the SEA’s annual measurable objectives (AMOs).

If you choose to request this waiver, please submit your request to me via e-mail, with “Carryover Waiver Request” in the subject line at titleIwaivers@ed.gov. You may also send a hard copy of your request to me at the following address:

Deborah S. Delisle
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-6100

Please note that an LEA may not carry over more than 15 percent of its FY 2012 Title I, Part A funds after September 30, 2013 unless the SEA has approved the LEA’s carryover waiver request. Therefore, I urge you to submit your waiver request as soon as possible. The Department will make every effort to respond to waiver requests quickly to facilitate your planning and that of your LEAs.

To assist you in requesting a waiver, I am attaching a template that you may wish to use. Prior to submitting a waiver request, you must provide all Title I LEAs with notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment on the request. Please attach copies of any comments received with your request. States must also provide notice and information regarding your waiver request to the public in the manner in which your SEA customarily provides such notice and information to the public (e.g., by publishing a notice in newspapers or by posting information regarding the waiver request on the SEA’s website).

If you have any questions about this waiver invitation, please address them to titleIwaivers@ed.gov. My office will be monitoring this mailbox frequently and will get back to you as soon as possible.

What impact could the proposed IRS health care regulations have on your district? Are you worried about the cost of providing health care to employees who are short-term and long-term substitute teachers, or to staff performing extracurricular or additional duties? Are you struggling to build your budget as a result of ACA implementation? Do you even know about the proposed IRS rule? If not, here’s quick primer:

• Beginning January 2014, the Affordable Care Act requires large employers (those regularly employing 50 or more full-time employees) to provide health care coverage for employees and their dependents. The definition of a full-time employee is someone who is employed an average of at least 30 hours of service per week. The IRS recently released a rule that states that summer break periods must be counted when calculating whether a 9-month (or 10-month) employee is employed an average of 30 hours per week. This means that school districts may not account for employment break periods of at least 4 consecutive weeks in duration when making calculations as to average hours of service.
• The proposed regulations permit school districts to take either of two approaches with respect to summer break periods. Districts can either exclude the break when calculating average hours during the measurement period; or they can credit the employee with hours of service during the employment break period at a rate equal to his or her average hours of service during non-break periods. When calculating average hours of service, no more than 501 hours of service during employment break periods are required to be excluded (or credited) by an educational organization per employee each calendar year.
• Shorter break periods of less than four consecutive weeks may be factored into average FTE determinations, but the regulations state that "hours of service" are not limited to hours actually worked. The new regulations define an "hour of service" to include "each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment by the employer for a period of time during which no duties are performed due to vacation, holiday, illness, disability, etc.
• There are also concerns for how the proposed IRS regulation would impact the ability of extremely small school districts (less than 50 full-time employees) to hire short and long term substitutes. AASA is worried that the inclusion of a substitute’s “part-time” hours in the FTE hours calculation might have the effect of pushing small districts into the category of an “applicable large employer”, which would require the district to offer health insurance coverage to all of its full-time employees.
• FTE calculations can also be affected by changes to short-term and long-term substitutes. Under the regulation, one substitute could be an “employee” of more than one district simultaneously. Because substitutes are not guaranteed a minimum number of hours of work within a given day, week or month, there are situations where a substitute may not be employed by a single district for a long period during the school year. However, the IRS proposed rule seems to suggest that a substitute’s part-time hours for each substitute assignment during a week would have to be included in the calculation of FTE hours for each respective school district. This means one employee could count against multiple districts. In addition, for long-term substitutes expected to work at least 30 hours/week, the IRS will require that a district assume that the substitute will work throughout the year thereby qualifying as a FTE, even if the date of employment is finite (3 months for example).
• Under the IRS proposed rule, “if an employer’s workforce exceeds 50 full-time employees for 120 days or fewer during a calendar year, and the employees in excess of 50 who were employed during that period of no more than 120 days were seasonal workers, the employer is not an applicable large employer.” After-school athletic teams and certain other extracurricular activities usually run for a defined period of time during the school year and these services are provided outside of the regular school day. However, it is unclear if a coach who coaches separate sports over the course of three season would be included as a FTE because the 4-month time period would have been exceeded. It’s also unclear whether a regular employee who is also a coach in a given school year, irrespective of for how many seasons that year, and is already included in the full-time employee count for “large employer” determinations would need to include the employee’s coaching hours of service in the FTE count as well.

If you’d like to weigh in with AASA’s Advocacy Team about how your district will be affected by the proposed IRS regulations, please email Sasha at spudelski@aasa.org

Hat tip to our friends at CEF for their quick turnaround on this chart, which is a side-by-side comparison of how the President proposes to fund education in FY14 compared to FY13 and FY12. 

Prepared by Noelle Ellerson, Assistant Director, Policy Analysis & Advocacy
April 10, 2013

PDF Version

On April 10, 2013, President Obama released his FY14 budget proposal. Federal fiscal year 2014 (FY14) starts October 1, 2013 and runs through September 30, 2014, and these federal funds would be in school districts in the 2014-15 school year. The President’s budget is similar in content and priorities to his previous budget proposals, including how it treats education. This analysis is broken in to three parts: Background and Overview, AASA Analysis and Talking Points, and Related Charts.

Part I: Background and Overview
President Obama’s proposal funds USED at $71.2 billion, an increase of $3.1 billion (4.5%) when compared to FY12. This year’s AASA budget response analysis compares the FY14 proposal to FY12, given that FY12 represents the last point of comparison pre-sequestration. The President’s proposal focuses on six priorities: early-learning opportunities, improving teaching and learning, safe schools/learning environments, career-readiness for all, improving affordability and quality in post-secondary education and supporting Ladders of Opportunity initiative for high-poverty communities.

• Early Education: The President’s budget proposes $75 billion over the next ten years to support a significant expansion of early education opportunities for low- and moderate-income four-year-olds. The budget proposal pays for this expansion by increasing the federal tax on tobacco products. In the early years, federal funds would represent a larger share of the program and, as time passes, states would come to shoulder the fiscal responsibility of maintaining these high-quality early education opportunities. The program would be competitive, and states would use the funds to provide early education to families making at/below 200% of the federal poverty level. It provides $1.3 billion in FY14 for Preschool for All and $750 million for the Preschool Development Grants. In related early education funding, the proposal also includes funds for Early Head Start ($1.4 billion) and home visit services ($15 billion over ten years).
• Improving Teaching and Learning: As in previous budget proposals, the FY14 plan calls for the consolidation of existing teacher-preparation programs. The ‘new’ element in the FY14 proposal is the School Leadership Program ($98 million) that would invest in training for principals. That new program accounts for virtually all of the $100 million increase to the Improving Teaching & learning line item.
• STEM: The proposal builds on previous efforts and consolidates 90 programs from 11 agencies to meet the President’s goal of producing 100,000 STEM teachers over the next ten years. Funded at $265 million, the proposal provides for STEM Innovation Networks ($150 million) to provide STEM learning opportunities in LEAs; $80 million for STEM Teacher Pathways to support STEM teacher preparation; and $35 million to establish a new STEM Master Teacher Corps.
• Safe Schools: The proposal consolidates three programs and provides an additional $84 million above FY12 levels to supports grants that build the capacity of states/districts/schools to create safe, healthy and drug-free environments. The new program would give USED authority to reserve funds for Now is the Time, the President’s proposal that reflects the recommendations of Vice President Biden’s gun safety task force. This initiative would include $30 million to support development, improvement and implementation of emergency management plans; $50 million for School Climate Transformation Grants, supporting PBIS and emergency management technical assistance centers (REMS); and $25 million for Project Prevent grants.
• State Assessments: The President’s budget proposes to level-fund the program that provides for the online testing consortia, while clarifying that these funds can be used to ‘…acquire, and to train teachers and other staff to use, the education technology needed to implement new, computer-based assessments’.
• Rural Education: The President’s budget level funds the Rural Education Achievement Program, proposes to cut $66 million from Impact Aid, and reauthorizes the Secure and Rural Schools and Communities Program (funded at $214 million).
• Competitive vs. Formula: In an alarming move, virtually all of the new money proposed for K12 funding is in competitive grants. Continued reliance on competitive funding undermines our nation’s commitment to ensuring all students have access to education and detracts from the federal government’s ability to meet its outstanding commitments to historically disadvantaged students through federal flagship programs, like IDEA and Title I.

Part II: AASA Analysis & Talking Points
Like years past, AASA recognizes that the administration continues to highlight education within otherwise limited budgets, proposing funding increases. AASA applauds the administration’s work to support increased investment in early education opportunities, STEM and school safety. These increases are an important step in supporting long-term, meaningful gains in student learning and school performance. AASA welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with the Department to engage school superintendents in education policy and budget discussions.

1. AASA is deeply concerned by the administration’s continued reliance on competitive grants and the fact that virtually every new dollar proposed for K12 programs is competitive. Given the federal government’s limited role in funding public education, AASA believes those federal dollars should be targeted to fulfill the federal government’s initial commitments to historically disadvantaged students, including the poor and those with disabilities.

• Formula grants represent a more reliable stream of funding to local school districts. Continued reliance on competition implies that competition alone produces innovation and student achievement. School districts and systems need a certain level of financial stability to undertake the ambitious innovation and reform proposed by the administration’s competitive grants. 
• A competitive funding mechanism creates a default position of ‘winner’ and ‘loser’. If education is to be both perceived and treated as a civil right, then no school or student should find themselves outside of the winner circle. The proper role of federal funding is to help level the playing field, and that requires providing opportunity—and resources—to all.
• Continued reliance on competitive grants undermines the stated ambition of not having a student’s zip code be a determining factor in the quality of their education. Given the current reality where not all schools have the same capacity to compete (not to be confused with willingness to compete), a student’s zip code is very much a proxy for whether or not they will have access to competitive funds, and that is not a level playing field.

2. President Obama proposes to level fund the federal government’s investment in federal flagship formula programs designed to level the playing field. Level funding IDEA and ESEA Title I, both of which face rising costs and increased enrollment, is a cut when calculated at the per-pupil level.

• Level funding for IDEA (without adjusting for inflation) puts the federal investment at 15.8 percent, less than half of the promised 40 percent of the additional cost of educating students with special needs. This does not account for sequestration. The cuts of sequestration would put the federal share below 15%. 
• Federal funding effort for IDEA continues to fall: The FY 14 proposal is level with FY12 and represents decreased effort when calculated as the federal contribution: the federal share has dropped from its recent high mark of 18.6 percent in FY 2005, to more recent levels of 16.4 percent in FY11 and 16.3 percent in FY12. 
• The burden for paying for special education will continue to be shifted to local districts, forcing school districts to raise local taxes or cut general education programs. AASA strongly supports Congressional efforts to reach the full-funding (40%) of IDEA.
• The proposed budget includes $14.52 billion for the College-and-Career-Ready Students program (formerly Title I Grants to LEAs). Level funding for Title I, in the context of increasing demand, increasing costs, and the cessation of federal emergency funding, will translate into reduced per-pupil funding levels.

3. AASA is concerned by the fact that the only federal education funds available to schools for education technology (including connectivity, infrastructure and professional development) are from the FCC and are not federal appropriations. As the nation’s schools work to prepare their students to be college and career ready, it is unacceptable that the Department of Education does not support investment in infrastructure, connectivity and professional development.

• AASA strongly supports the FCC’s E-Rate program and the continued support it provides the nation’s schools and libraries, helping them afford their telecommunications connectivity. 
• AASA acknowledges that USED provides funding for state grants to support the online assessments. These funds, however, are limited and were designed to support the development of online assessment.
• AASA appreciates the clarification that these funds could be used for professional development and infrastructure, but believes that a serious conversation would have included increased funding to support this expansion.

4. AASA questions some of the premises upon which the budget proposal was built, including the reinstating of sequestration cuts and ESEA reauthorization.

• Reinstating the Cuts of Sequestration: There is a distinct possibility that the FY13 sequestration cuts remain intact. Even if the cuts of sequestration are reverted, it is extremely unlikely that the resulting funding level for USED programs would be at pre-sequestration (FY12) levels. It is far more likely that any deal to ‘resolve’ sequestration will include a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases, including cuts to education. In light of these cuts, it is likely that—even if adopted—these proposed funding increases would not be enough to offset the cuts. Given this reality, AASA again reiterates deep concern for increased investments in competitive programs instead of investments in federal flagship formula programs (including Title I and IDEA).
• ESEA Reauthorization: Complete reauthorization of the federal government’s premier K12 education policy is one of AASA’s top legislative priorities. AASA is pleased to see the administration make mention of reauthorization. AASA questions the sincerity of such an assumption, given the administration’s emphasis on ESEA waivers that provide regulatory relief to some, but not all, states and, more recently, individual districts. AASA strongly encourages Secretary Duncan and the Department of Education to recommit to advancing federal education policies that provide relief and opportunity to all students and districts, not just those in states or communities willing and/or able to compete for waiver relief.

5. AASA applauds the administration’s commitment to school safety and supports flexibility for states and school districts to determine the best investments in school safety (including mental health and school climate).

• School superintendents are committed to providing all students with a safe learning environment that addresses the total child, from physical and mental health to the development of fundamental, lifelong learning skills. Only when children have support for all their needs will schools have a real chance of helping every student master required education concepts and skills. 
• AASA applauds the administration’s commitment to helping schools develop, implement and improve their emergency management plans. It is imperative, however, that schools and states be granted maximum flexibility in deciding what those crisis plans, school resources, and mental health supports look like. 
• AASA urges the administration to reconsider its reliance on ‘recreating the wheel’. Programs that already exist—including COPS within the Department of Justice and Safe/Drug Free Schools within USED—represent currently-authorized programs that the administration could use to more readily and efficiently get resources to schools as quickly as possible.

Part III: Related Charts

See the PDF for related charts.

Better late than never (emphasis on the late, seeing as both the House and Senate have adopted their respective FY14 budget resolutions), President Obama today released his FY14 budget proposal. These are the dollars that, once through the full appropriations process, would be in your schools in the 2014-15 school year.

I am finalizing AASA's overview of and response to the budget. For your reference, though, I am linking here to a host of resources and materials:

• The Budget Overview 
• Related Agencies: Education, Justice, HHS, Agriculture
• Analytical Perspectives
• Historical Tables
• Supplemental Materials
• Appendix
• Past Budgets
• USED Detail
• Budget Justifications
• FY14 Eucation Budget Summary and Background Information

As reported in an earlier blog post, USDA issued a proposed rule that would regulate competitive foods within schools. That is, USDA is proposing rules that would impact the nutritional requirements and availability of foods sold during the school day, but outside of the reimbursable meal pattern.

AASA filed comments in response to the proposed rule: (PDF)  

Comments as filed:

On behalf of the American Association of School Administrators, representing more than 10,000 school superintendents across the country, I am writing to share our comments in response to the proposed rule published by the Food and Nutrition Service in the February 8, 2013 edition of the Federal Register, titled Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School as Required by the Health, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

AASA supports the overall goals to end childhood hunger and address the epidemic of childhood obesity in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (PL 111-296). School superintendents understand the importance of fostering a healthy and positive learning environment. AASA’s response to this interim rule is in large shaped by the unfunded mandate the requirements and proposed regulations will bring to LEAs. AASA is concerned by the financial impact the interim could have on local education agencies (LEAs) in a time when many continue to struggle with the impacts of the economic recession and the troubling cuts of sequestration. The federal child nutrition law and its implementation must ensure that educational systems are supported, not undermined, by the provisions of the act.

AASA strongly supports the role of good nutrition for all students and recognizes its important role in helping advance student achievement. While AASA could not support the reauthorization of the child nutrition bill as passed, we remain hopeful that the regulation and implementation process will provide an avenue for addressing our concerns with the bill, especially as it pertains to the unfunded costs associated with the bill. Every day, school districts across the nation provide millions of school-based meals, both breakfast and lunch. The scope of the program is wide: in FY10, schools served 2.9 billion free NSLP lunches, 0.5 billion reduced price lunches, 1.8 billion ‘full’ price (or paid) lunches, 1.5 billion free breakfasts, 0.2 billion reduced price breakfasts, and 0.3 billion paid breakfasts. Federal meal reimbursements and USDA Foods totaled $13.3 billion in FY10.

AASA urges the Department to ensure that implementation of this law reinforces the important goals of the school nutrition program. We recognize that the intention of this rule was to regulate competitive foods within schools. Unfortunately, we find this interim rule proposes an unprecedented expansion of regulation in an area that had previously been under state and local control. Further, this regulation comes without any federal resources to support the required compliance. AASA is opposed to the unfunded mandate this proposed rule represents to our nation’s schools.

As an opening, general comment, AASA is concerned by the Department’s willingness to make a conscious decision to shift local school district funds from instruction to the federal school nutrition program without engaging the public. When created, the National School Lunch Program was designed as a federal program that was locally implemented. While states and locals could contribute to the program, the federal program was federally funded. With this latest reauthorization we see a significant shift, with a clear assumption that this program is now, somehow, a partnership, with direct fiscal implications for state and local dollars that were previously available for state and local priorities. This is a sentiment we have articulated time and again as this bill moved through the legislative and now regulatory processes, and we are concerned that the shift in funding burden is being overlooked. School districts should not have to continue to financially subsidize the federal meals program at the expense of their primary responsibility, our students' educational program.

As written, the current law, proposed regulations and interim rule cause good nutrition policy to fail because the provisions make the program fiscally impossible in these tough economic times. Recent guidance issued by USDA, relating to lifting the cap requirements on whole grains and protein within the new meal pattern, is an excellent example of the problematic nature of the current law and its implementation as shaped by proposed/pending regulations and rules. The law and its regulations should not put LEAs in the position of having to choose between covering the federal funding shortfall and funding an instructional position. Little attention has been focused on the drain of local school district funds to pay for or offset the continuing un-funded costs of the federal free and reduced-priced school meals, and AASA is concerned that this interim rule compounds this problem.

School superintendents simply request that the role of the federal government as it relates to competitive foods in schools be proportional to the amount of resources it provides to support the regulations. As the federal government currently does not provide funds—and this regulation provides no resources—for competitive foods, there is not a role for federal policy to dictate competitive food policy in school districts. Either provide the resources required to cover the costs associated with the new competitive food regulations or refrain from imposing new federal requirements.

AASA recognizes that it is likely these competitive food regulations will become reality, in some shape or form. To that end, while AASA opposes any federal role for regulating competitive foods within the school lunch program—we offer these comments:

• Defer to State and Local Governance: AASA fully subscribes to the idea that state and local education agencies are best positioned to develop wellness policies. These wellness policies are usually the area of school policy that shapes competitive food policy. Further, the regulations themselves describe a current reality where many states and schools are already working to ensure healthier options exist within their competitive food offerings. As such, the unfunded nature of these federal regulations is unnecessary, redundant, and burdensome. Local and state education agencies are the ones best positioned to make decisions that reflect the diversity of their student, schools and lunch programs while bolstering/supporting overall participation in the school lunch/breakfast programs.
• Definitions: AASA generally agrees with the definitions, as proposed, for competitive foods, school day, school campus and combination foods.
• General Nutrition Standards (including a la carte/entrée items): AASA believes that any standards relating to competitive foods (including their nutritional elements and a la carte items) should be consistent with/identical to those already in place for the school lunch/breakfast programs. AASA opposes any effort to restrict or modify or frequently an LEA can serve a la carte items that meet school lunch program standards.
• Fundraisers: AASA opposes both of the alternatives proposed in the regulations. AASA believes that the determination of exemptions for competitive food fundraisers (including count and/or frequency standards) is at the total discretion of the SEA. As such, AASA proposes a melding of the two alternatives, authoring SEAs to determine the number of exempt fundraisers and/or frequency standard, without USDA approval.
• Record Keeping and Monitoring Requirements: AASA finds the proposed rule to include significant implications for the personnel and fiscal resources of LEAs (ie, unfunded mandate) related to record keeping and monitoring requirements. The regulation itself estimates the administrative costs associated with the recordkeeping (pg. 121-122). The estimated additional annual burden for recordkeeping under the proposed rule is 926,935 hours, estimated to cost an additional $127.6 million over five years, with no intention of providing any resources.
• Issue of Non-Compliance: AASA would like the USDA to explain the consequences state and local education agencies will face if they are found to be in non-compliance with the competitive food standards. The federal government provides no resources to support this element of the school nutrition program. Beyond the burden the unfunded mandate of competitive food represents, AASA finds USDA has nothing it can leverage against SEAs/LEAs in noncompliance and, as such, reiterates our concern that there is not a role for federal policy within competitive foods.

Join school administrators and educators across the country for the final two installations of a three-part series looking at the promise of Common Core State Standards within the work of authentic school reform.

Former AASA Executive Direcotr Paul Houston will lead a discussion on April 23; he will describe his beliefs on the importance of collaboration and how the new standards can support children in developing socially, ethically, and academically. Houston will also share his views on possible pitfalls of the CCSS and discuss opportunities to implement what is right for all children.

Houston’s discussion is part of a 3-part series including P. David Pearson and Esther Wojcicki. Esther is an American journalist and teacher at Palo Alto High School where she developed the largest high school journalism program in the country. P.David Pearson is a Professor and former Dean at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education and founding editor of Handbook of Reading Research.

Learn More

• P.David Pearson
• March 19, 10am PST
• http://www.devstu.org/workshop/a-conversation-with-p-david-pearson-phd

• Esther Wojcicki
• April 16, 12pm PST
• http://www.devstu.org/workshop/a-conversation-with-esther-wojcicki-ma

• Paul Houston
• April 23, 12pm PST
• http://www.devstu.org/workshop/a-conversation-with-paul-houston-edd

This series is hosted by the nonprofit organization, Developmental Studies Center.

A Senate office has asked us for feedback and help in providing specific examples where past Department of Education rules and regulations did not adequately take into consideration unique needs of rural schools and districts, and thus, that rules/regulation was subsequently revised.

If you have any such experience or information, please send it to Noelle (nellerson@aasa.org).

Our friends at Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice and the National Education Policy Center have released Research Based Options, an multipart brief addressing important policy issues that identifies policies supported by research. To date, each issue has focused on a different issue.  

The full set is accessible via the link in the opening paragraph of this blog post. For your convenience, though, I am linking to the individual topics, as well:

• Teacher Evaluation
• Common Core
• Preschool
• Public Funding of School Choice
• Drop Out Strategies
• Effective School Expenditures
• ELL and Parental Involvement

Our friends at the Rural School and Community Trust recently issued a special edition of Rural Policy Matters, focused on school violence. This special edition of Rural Policy Matters presents information gathered from some 700 media accounts of specific incidents of violence in schools since 1974.

The edition is reproduced here, with permission.

Among these incidents, we found 80 accounts of mass violence, claiming a total of 153 lives. We found references to almost as many mass violence incidents that were averted through interventions by other students, parents, and school staff or because the attempt failed.

Although mass violence events tend to capture more general media attention, we found three times more deaths in incidents that were not part of mass violence events. Overall, students were the most frequent perpetrators and victims of violence in schools.

These numbers corroborate other evidence that one of the most important things schools can do to prevent violence is develop and maintain a positive environment that engages and supports everyone and helps students learn skills and attitudes to prevent, resolve, and manage conflict.

The incidents also suggest that different types of schools might best be served by policies and practices aimed toward their specific circumstances. For example, the vast majority of incidents in middle and high schools involve student perpetrators. However, adult intruders were much more common in elementary schools.

The report underscores the need for more and better information about violence in the U.S. and about the practices and policies that will reduce the likelihood that anyone will be victimized.

Information is presented in both narrative and infographic form.

We hope this report helps to bring a rural perspective to policy debates about safety, guns, and violence in the U.S. These are important conversations that need the authentic engagement of rural Americans in all their varied perspectives and experiences.

In this issue:

InfoGraphic: Death and Mass Violence in U.S. K–12 Schools, 1974–2013
This infographic presents information about mass violence and deadly one-on-one incidents in schools over the past 40 years. It can be printed on either 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17" paper.

The Distance Between
This editorial frames the report and brings a rural perspective to the current debate on public safety, guns, and schools.

About This Special Edition on School Violence
Read this section to understand what we hope this special edition of RPM can contribute and why we took a narrative approach to our exploration of violent incidents in schools.

Introduction: Approaches and Definitions
Read this section to understand how we put this report together, how we defined “school violence,” and how we sorted specific incidents into meaningful categories.

Summary of Patterns in the Incidents
Read this section to understand the major patterns inherent in the school violence events included in the report.

In-Depth Exploration of Incidents
Read this section to get more detailed information about patterns in the incidents.

InfoGraphic: Patterns in School Violence: It's Not What You Think
This infographic presents major patterns in incidents of violence in schools since 1974. It can be printed on 8.5" x 11" paper.

Violence Begets Violence: Revenge, Copycatting, Triggers, and Threads
Read this section to learn about connections between specific incidents.

Schools Inside and Out: Practices and Policies to Protect Everyone in School Settings
Read this section for descriptions of practices and policies that can lead to safer, happier, and more productive schools.

Conclusions: Putting It All In Context
Read this section for a brief summary and analysis of the context for reducing violence in American schools.

Graph: Percentage of Schools Reporting Violent Crime That Occurred at School By Locale
View this graph to see differences in violence rates among schools in rural communities, towns, suburbs, and cities.

Chart of Mass Violence Incidents
View this chart as a reference for more specific information about the 80 incidents of Mass Violence identified in this report, including links to newspaper accounts.

AASA has begun to compile recommendations for the next re-authorization of IDEA and Rethinking the Special Education Due Process System, is the first report in our series that addresses problems with the current statute as well as proposed improvements. Rethinking is intended to spark a thoughtful, new dialogue about the need for critical changes to the special education dispute resolution system. The report contends modifications to the current due process system could greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the burdensome and often costly litigation that does not necessarily ensure measureable educational gains for special education students. At the same time, AASA’s proposal preserves the right for parents to move forward with litigation against a district and maintains other effective dispute resolution models that were put in place in the prior re-authorizations.

Download the complete report here.

AASA members spoke, and AASA staff listened. Federal policy/advocacy is one area that AASA members consistently rank highly as it relates to what they are looking for in a national organization.

This year's registration fee is dramatically lower than years past; we will offer the same amount of high quality, high energy sessions, including a legislative breakfast and time on Capitil Hill to meet with your Congressional delegation. We'll just do so for half the cost.

You can learn more by visitng the legislative conference website and/or checking out this full page ad.

The gravity and the number of indictments coming out of the Fulton County grand jury regarding the Atlanta public schools’ cheating investigation are of unprecedented scope.

Although no one has been convicted, the indictments alone are ruinous to the reputations of those involved and will raise questions regarding the legitimacy of the performance of other school systems that have experienced significant student achievement gains.

Educators have been swift to punish students when they have been caught cheating, and we should be equally swift in penalizing adults convicted of perpetrating crimes.

Tests have always been part of the education process, but we have never seen charges of this massive a conspiracy nor this many cheating incidents as we have seen in recent years. If indeed educators are succumbing to the pressures of high stakes testing, then making standardized test results the significant component of teacher evaluations will only add to that pressure. There are better and more valid and reliable ways to hold educators accountable for the performance of our students. It is time to re-evaluate the current process.

Our friends at ISTE are leading a White House petition to 'invest in classroom broadband connectivity to ensure that all students are ready for college and 21st centur careers.'

Here's the text of the petition: Education, like every sector in America, is undergoing a digital transformation. As students and educators embrace personalized instruction, online and mobile learning, adaptive assessments and data-driven decision making, and develop critical thinking, collaboration, communication and digital citizenship skills, demands on school networks will continue to skyrocket. Unfortunately, unlike the business and healthcare sectors, K–12 investment in school broadband infrastructure has lagged. Even the successful E-Rate program cannot meet rapidly escalating school needs for increased bandwidth. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) recognizes that we as a nation must invest in school broadband connectivity to ensure our students graduate equipped for success. Act now!

You can sign the petition online by visiting: http://wh.gov/LVL7

Last week, USDA issued letters to governors in 42 states, informing them that they needed to refund a portion of their Secure Rural Schools payments, made in January as part of federal fiscal year 2012.

The letters to the governors indicate that the agency is rescinding these funds in compliance with the anti-deficiency act. States have until April 19th to let the agency know the money will be repaid.

AASA is working in conjunction with our friends at NEA and the Forest Counties coalition to support a Dear Colleague letter on Capitol Hill. Signed by members of Congress, the letter asks for a justification for the retroactive refund and urges the administration to work more closely with Congress and meet with impacted states before moving forward with collection notices.

If your district receives funds from SRS, reach out to your Representative and urge them to support the Dear Colleague letter.

The Office of Management and Budget has issued a clarification that there will be an across-the-board cut in the final FY13 appropriations package, beyond the 5% cut of sequestration.

A technicality within the CR itself gave OMB the authority to reduce overall funding authority in the continuing resolution exceeded the previously established FY13 spending caps (as determined in the 2011 budget control act). The Congressional Budget Office determined that the FY13 final appropriations package was within the cap; OMB review ended up with a slightly higher calculation, above the cap.

This across-the-board cut will apply to all discretionary programs within USED. In terms of what this means for your district and budgeting, take your FY12 allocations, reduce them by 0.2%, the adjust down again for sequestration. This additional across-the-board cut translates into an additional $136 million cut for USED.

As part of our work with the Wallace Foundation, AASA is pleased to offer a webinar: Effective Principals in Our Schools Takes Commitment and Focus.

Too often, training for principals fails to prepare them for the difficult task of guiding schools to better teaching and learning. This webinar will focus on the Wallace Foundation research and work in school leadership to identify five lessons for better training, including: more selective admission to training programs, a focus on instructional leadership and mentoring for new principals. Two urban school districts, Charlotte-Mecklenberg Public Schools, N.C. and Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL will share their stories as they set out to create a Principal Pipeline in their school districts to attract strong educational leaders into the position.

• Register at: https://knowledgecenter.webex.com
• Moderator: Jody Spiro, Director, Education Leadership, The Wallace Foundation
• Participants: MaryEllen Elia (Superintendent, Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL) and Ann B. Clark (Deputy Superintendent, Charlotte-Mecklenberg Public Schools, N.C.)
• Webinar: April 9, 2013 2:00pm. – 3:00pm.

AASA, in conjunction with the US Education Department, is producing several webinars on School Emergency Procedures, Practices and Risk Assessments. The first webinar in the series--District-Level School Emergency Management for Superintendents--was held last week, and had nearly 200 participants.  

School Emergency Management: Vulnerability and Risk Assessment

• Date and Time: April 11, 2013 2 p.m. EDT
• Duration: 60 Minutes
• Registration URL: http://rems.ed.gov/webinars/WebinarRegistration.aspx?WebinarID=22
• Description: This webinar will provide a brief overview of the key elements of vulnerability and risk assessments as part of a comprehensive, all-hazards school emergency management plan! This one-hour webinar, "School Emergency Management: Vulnerability and Risk Assessment," will provide you with the necessary information to help build capacity and learn more about how comprehensive, all-hazards plans are developed, implemented, and enhanced as it relates to vulnerability and risk assessment. Immediately following the 45-minute presentation will be a 15-minute question and answer session, along with information on how to access more information and resources.

Implementing a School Emergency Management Plan at the School and District Level

• Date and Time: April 25, 2013 2 p.m. EDT
• Duration: 60 Minutes
• Registration URL: http://rems.ed.gov/webinars/WebinarRegistration.aspx?WebinarID=24
• Description: This webinar will provide a brief overview of the key elements of implementing a comprehensive, all-hazards school emergency management plan! This one-hour webinar, "Implementing a School Emergency Management Plan at the School and District Level," will provide an overview of the four-phases of school emergency management (Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery) as well as the critical components and processes of school emergency management. The webinar will provide you with necessary information to help build capacity and learn more about how comprehensive, all-hazards plans are developed, implemented, and enhanced at the school building and the District level. Immediately following the 45-minute presentation will be a 15-minute question and answer session, along with information on how to access more information and resources.

AASA is pleased to support, be involved with, and to offer access to a unique Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) on Digital Learning Transition, designed to help educators navigate the shift to digital learning by turning them into Digital Learners. The precursor to our support of this MOOC is Digital Learning Day and Project 24, both covered on this blog!

Last week, the Alliance for Excellent Education and Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at North Carolina State University opened enrollment for a first-of-its-kind Massive Online Open Course for Educators (MOOC-Ed). Titled “Digital Learning Transition,” the free course will examine how the effective use of digital learning can help school districts meet educational challenges, including implementing college- and career-ready standards for all students and preparing teachers to make effective use of technology to enhance teaching and learning.

The course—a component of the Alliance’s “Project 24” initiative and the first of a series of MOOC-Eds planned by the Friday Institute—will help school district leaders develop a set of digital learning goals to address their students’ specific needs. Participating educators will learn how technology and the global information age impact both what students need to know and how and when student learning can take place. They will study the elements necessary for a successful digital learning transition, develop a set of goals for digital learning aligned to desired student outcomes, and create an action plan to meet these goals.

“By participating in this ground-breaking effort, educators can experience first-hand how digital learning can change teaching and improve learning,” said Bob Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education and former governor of West Virginia. “At the same time, they will develop a valuable plan for how to take their school or district through a digital learning transition.”

Throughout the course, participants will have access to digital learning experts who have successfully implemented digital learning efforts that are supporting teachers and positively impacting student learning. And by conducting the course on such a massive scale—literally thousands of district leaders can participate—participants will also benefit from “crowdsourcing,” a collaborative professional learning experience that uses the “wisdom of the crowd” to discuss ideas, share strategies and resources, and exchange constructive feedback with other participants in similar roles and schools.

“The Digital Learning Transition MOOC-Ed enables educators to experience using innovative technologies as learners and collaborators, which will help them gain insights into what these technologies can mean for students,” said Glenn Kleiman, executive director of the Friday Institute. “We look forward to having many innovative educators join us in exploring this new form of large-scale, flexible, multimedia, and collaborative professional development.”

Each of the seven course sessions will include core resources and supplemental materials around a specific topic, while allowing for a great deal of personalization and flexibility. Participants are expected to navigate their own paths, consistent with their own goals and the needs of their school or district, while being supported and guided by the facilitators, resources, and fellow participants.

Running from April 8 through May 24, the seven-week course is designed for school and district leaders, including superintendents, principals, curriculum directors, technology directors, financial officers, instructional coaches, lead teachers, and others involved in planning and implementing K–12 digital learning initiatives. Participants should expect to commit between two and four hours each week, but there will be opportunities for those who wish to invest more time and explore issues more deeply.

Interested individuals can obtain more information and register for the course at dlt.mooc-ed.org. After registering, they are strongly encouraged to take Project 24’s free online self assessment to help frame a vision for digital learning and specify how technology can help align efforts to achieve college- and career-ready standards. Upon completion of the self assessment, participants will receive a personalized report analyzing their district’s progress in integrating technology into instruction.

The MOOC-Ed is part of “Project 24,” a ground-breaking new initiative led by the Alliance for Excellent Education to help school districts plan for and effectively use technology and digital learning. Project 24 is an urgent call to action on the need for systemic planning around the effective use of technology and digital learning to achieve the goal of career and college readiness for all students. Project 24 participants benefit from free comprehensive district-level planning tools, expert advice, creative ideas, and tangible suggestions from experienced education experts and nonprofit education membership organizations. Already, more than 800 school leaders and 400 school district teams—representing 4.7 million students—have signed up to participate.

The Digital Learning Transition MOOC-Ed is provided by the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation as part of ongoing work to support the effective use of technologies and innovative teaching and learning practices in K–12 education.

“Make no mistake; digital learning holds the key to preparing millions of additional students for college and a productive career, but district leaders need to approach this opportunity with sound planning to leverage the potential and achieve the best results,” said Wise. “Going forward, our goal is to get every district to sign up and start planning.”

It's a good question. AASA is an original supporter of Digital Learning Day, something that superintendents and school districts across the nation have supported and participated in with growing numbers. We covered it a few times in the blog......see here and here!

Digital Learning Day, while important, is a one-day focus on Digital Learning, though digital learning is an everyday kind of thing. Project 24 is an opportunity for schools to engage--over 24 months-in conversations, professional development and networking that will bolster digital learning in schools.

Why P24? Because it provides tangible assistance to school districts for systemic planning around the effective use of technology and digital learning to achieve the goal of “college and career readiness” for all students.

Sign up today. You can learn more through this Project 24 Overview Document or introductory slideshow.

AASA is pleased to partner with the Alliance for Excellent Education (the Alliance) on the new initiative called Project 24. Hundreds of districts have already registered to participate. We invite you to review the free resources provided to district and school leaders to help plan for the effective use of technology as you strive for achieving higher student outcomes through the new college- and career-ready standards and sign up to participate. There is no specific time commitment on behalf of the district leaders, and you can begin by (1) signing up; (2) getting ready and assembling a team; (3) taking the self assessment, (4) consider participating in the free, online MOOC-Ed Digital Learning Transition Course. Upon review of your district or school’s confidential report, it is up to you how to make the most of the resources that are available through Project 24 web content, schedule of events, online course, and a team of experts.

Project 24 Framework: The Project 24 framework helps district leaders address the seven major topics listed below as they engage in their Planning for Progress process. Connections between each of the topics highlight the power of systemic planning to address college- and career-ready standards. Implementation of these learning outcomes will be supported by appropriate technology applications and aligned with the new, higher expectations for learning. The Project 24 framework will provide assistance for implementing

Free Self Assessment for District or School Leaders: District or school leaders will bring together the leadership team that will take a digital learning self assessment. Requiring no more than two hours to complete, this self assessment includes questions to help each district frame their vision, begin to recognize various aspects of the system to be addressed, and specify how technology can help align these efforts to achieve higher college- and career-ready standards. Each school district will be provided with a PDF report that analyzes where it is in each topic, as well as offering recommendations about best ways to use the Project 24 tools and content to review and develop its digital learning strategy.

Online Course: MOOC-Ed for Digital Transition Initiative Leaders: For the first component of the support model, the Alliance will use a Massive Online Open Course for Educators (MOOC–Ed) currently being developed by the Friday Institute to implement and evaluate an innovative, cost-effective, and scalable approach to providing professional development for K–12 digital transition planning teams, as well as individual teacher leaders and administrators. While most MOOCs provide accessible and cost-effective learning for large groups of participants, the Alliance/Friday Institute approach expands the application by incorporating a professional learning community structure and building upon authentic problems of professional practices and alignment with other principles of effective professional development.

Team of Experts: The Alliance has identified a team of nationally recognized leaders who have a demonstrated record of success effectively using technology to help advance the goals of college and career readiness, including development of the core competencies of creative and critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and self-reflection (deeper learning/twenty-first-century skills). This team of experts consists of teachers, principals, librarians, media specialists, chief technology officers/chief information officers, and superintendents from school districts of all sizes across the country representing various demographic groups and perspectives. The team of experts will help district leaders develop strategies and address the seven interrelated topics within the framework mentioned above.

Sign up TODAY and learn more at http://www.all4ed.org/project24.

Please let me (Noelle) know if you have any questions, or you can reach out directly to Sara Hall at the Alliance for Excellent Education at shall@all4ed.org.

For the first time in four years, the Senate adopted a budget resolution. After more than 13 hours of debate, including consideration of more than 70 amendments, the Senate passed Sen.Con.Res 8, its budget proposal for FY14. The final vote (50-49) came very early Saturday morning. The details of the budget—including amendments AASA was monitoring—are available in a previous blog post.

Four Democrats (Baucus, Begich, Hagan and Pryor) voted against the budget. The IDEA and Impact Aid amendments AASA was following were not voted on. Here is an overview of the education-related amendments that were covered:

• Senator Murray introduced an amendment that was the Ryan House budget (defeated 40-59).
• Alexander’s Title I portability (Voucher) amendment was defeated 39-60, with six Republicans (Blunt, Collins, Fischer, Kirk, Moran and Murkowski) voting against the proposal.
• Senator Baucus’ amendment to create the Office of Rural Education Policy at USED was adopted.
• Senator Lee’s amendment relating to Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) payments was adopted. The amendment supports PILT reauthorization, and would impact 1,900 counties in 49 states.

Both the House and Senate this week are considering their chambers’ respective budget proposal for FY14. This blog post includes a quick overview of what’s in each budget (Relying heavily on links to budget committee resources) and then summarizes where we are in terms of votes.

Background on House Budget Proposal: You can read the committee report on the budget proposal, which details proposed policy changes assumed in the budget. Many of the changes relate to higher education, though there is one withK-12 implications: “Eliminate Ineffective and Duplicative Federal Education Programs. The current structure for K–12 programs at the Department of Education is fragmented and ineffective. Moreover, many programs are duplicative or are highly restricted, serving only a small number of students. Given the budget constraints, Congress must focus resources on programs that truly help students. The budget calls for reorganization and streamlining of K–12 programs and anticipates major reforms to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was last reauthorized as part of the No Child Left Behind Act. The budget also recommends that the committees of jurisdiction terminate and reduce programs that are failing to improve student achievement and address the duplication among the 82 programs that are designed to improve teacher quality.”

The Ryan budget isn’t that drastically different in its framework than last year’s budget proposal. I wrote an initial analysis earlier this month and included a quick comparison to the Murray budget earlier this week.

Status of House FY14 Budget: The House today passed their budget by a vote of 221-207. No Democrats voted for it and 10 Republicans voted against the measure. The House had previously voted down for Budget Alternatives (all mentioned in AASA’s letter of opposition to the Ryan budget proposal):

• Democratic Substitute, as introduced by Representative VanHollen
• Congressional Black Caucus alternative
• Congressional Progressive Caucus alternative
• Republican Study Committee alternative

Background on Senate Budget Proposal: You can read the committee report on the senate budget proposal. If the Senate is able to act on this budget, it would be the first time since 2009 that they have done so. Chairman Murray’s budget eliminates the across-the-board cuts of sequestration and adds additional spending (stimulus dollars that include funds for school construction) as a way to stimulate economic growth. It maintains investments in education in FY14 as well as the outyears. Bipartisan Policy Center released a really good overview of the Murray budget.

Status of Senate FY14 Budget: The Senate is debating amendments for the budget as we write this. AASA wrote a letter of support for the budget, including comments on three specific amendments. The Senate is expected to consider upwards of 100 amendments; while debate started tonight, it is expected to wrap before midnight and resume tomorrow. It is possible they finish tomorrow, though it may spill in to Sunday. There are a handful of education-related amendments that I wanted to flag for you:

• Senator Robert’s IDEA Funding Amendment ““to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act while cutting untested educational programs elsewhere in the budget”. This amendment would divert funding away from unassessed/unauthorized programs (like Race to the Top) and put the money in to IDEA. AASA Supports 
• Senator Baucus’ Rural Education Amendment ““to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support rural schools and districts.” This amendment would create an office of Rural Education Policy. AASA supports
• Senator Inhofe’s Impact Aid Funding Amendment ““to establish a deficit-neutral fund to ensure that impact aid payments under section 800 and 8003 of the ESEA of 1965 do not fall below 2012-2013 school year levels.” This amendment would ensure that Impact Aid payments do not fall below current school year levels. AASA supports
• Senator Cruz’ Voucher Amendment “to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for choice-based early education scholarships”. This amendment would support federal vouchers. AASA opposes
• Senator Alexander’s Voucher Amendment “to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve education in the United States by allowing funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to follow children to the school they attend” This amendment would make Title I funds portable; that is, it would ‘voucherize’ Title I and create an allowable use for private school tuition. AASA opposes 
• Senator Alexander’s Pay for Performance Amendment “to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support State and local educational agency compensation programs for teachers who have a demonstrated record of improving student academic achievement” This amendment would allow state and local education agencies to use pay for performance models. AASA is neutral
• Senator Alexander’s Charter School Amendment “to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support the creation or expansion of high-quality charter schools” This amendment would provide money for expanding charter schools. AASA is neutral

Bottom line? The differences between the House/Ryan budget and the Senate/Murray budget are significant, both in terms of overall funding level, addressing sequestration, and policy framework. This means we are, essentially, on course for another series of continuing resolutions. If I were a betting woman), and I am not, I would bet against Congress finishing its annual budget/appropriations work without using a CR. And that’s without considering Congress’ rather abysmal track record for completing budget and appropriations work on time.

Earlier this week, Senate Leadership released this roster of resources analyzing the House budget proposal for FY14:

Before we get to what the Senate released on the House budget, let me link to the Bipartisan Policy Center's analysis of Chairman Murray's budget.

DPCC:

• FACT SHEET: Ryan Budget 3.0 - Anything But Balanced
• State-by-State Impact of Republican Budget on Seniors
• State-by-State Impact of Republican Budget on Jobs
• The Republican Hocus-Pocus Budget: Five Magic Tricks Paul Ryan Uses to Balance His Budget

Center for American Progress:

• How the Ryan Budget Impacts Seniors
• The Ryan Budget Includes Devastating Health Care Cost Increases for Seniors—Again
• Paul Ryan Learns Nothing From Historic Gender Gap: Budget Guts Women’s Health Programs
• The Ryan Plan: Cutting Benefits for Poor Women to Protect Millionaires
• How the Ryan Budget Will Affect Communities of Color
• Ryan Budget 101: The 10 Worst Things About the House Republican Budget
• Third Time’s Not a Charm

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

• The Ryan Budget’s Tax Cuts: Nearly $6 Trillion in Cost and No Plausible Way to Pay for It
• Chairman Ryan Gets 66 Percent of His Budget Cuts from Programs for People With Low or Moderate Incomes
• Commentary: Murray’s More Evenhanded Approach to Deficit Reduction Contrasts Sharply With Ryan’s

Economic Policy Institute:

• Ryan proposes another path to fewer jobs and slower growth

Tax Policy Center/Washington Post:

• Ryan budget’s tax cuts would benefit the very wealthy, nonpartisan group says

UPDATED 3/21 at 8:30 pm: As mentioned in the original blog post (below), the House today considered and adopted the Senate version, sending the final CR bill to the President for signing. Our friends at CEF compiled a chart detailing funding levels for all education programs.

**

Yesterday, the Senate passed the FY13 CR. You’ll recall that the Harkin amendment (Which included targeted education funding increases) was defeated last week. Read AASA's letter of support. This means all federal education funds will be level funded and then cut by sequestration. Please note that Head Start did receive a $33.5 million increase. Unfortunately, education was funded as a year-long CR, meaning there was not room to advocate for programmatic increases. All programs will operate under FY12 terms and conditions. There are a few anomalies to make note of in sections 1513 and 1514:

• 1513 provides $3 million under the Safe Schools and Citizenship account to support educational agencies impacted by school violence.
• 1514 clarifies that USED can adjust state allocations for IDEA such that the states are not penalized multiple times for a single infraction of maintenance of effort. While this still fails to provide direct relief to districts from the MoE pressure of IDEA (Especially in the context of sequestration), the additional funds that can flow to states does have a trickle-down benefit to local education agencies, whose states will now not be subject to multiple financial penalties.

The House is anticipated to take action today on the Senate version of the CR. This would clear it for the President and mean that Congress did its job for FY13. Er, for half of FY13. Six months late.

Our friends across the street (National School Boards Association) worked with Congress to introduce legislation to ensure that USED's actions are consistent with the original intent of law and that those actions do not undermine the educational, opertaional and financial functions at the local level. The bill protects local eduation agency governanct from intrusive and over-reaching federal intrusion.

AASA sent a letter of support to the Hill, endorsing the legislation and its work to ensure that any future waivers, rules, guidance, regulations and other activities from USED do not go beyond the specific intent of federally authorized legislation. Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) is the lead sponsor for the legislation.

Related Materials:

• AASA letter of support
• Issue Brief
• Text of Legislation
• Section-by-Section

Until recently, most school superintendents have had to rely on the annual salary study sponsored by Education Research Service (ERS) to benchmark their compensation and benefits. With the recent closure of ERS, a void was created for such data. The American Association of School Administrators (AASA) responded to this need by creating a comprehensive study of the salary and benefits of school superintendents.

AASA is particularly well-suited for this task because it represents vast majority of school superintendents in the country and has been most active in collecting and disseminating to its members critical data needed to inform decision making. In the absence of the ERS data collection efforts, this study represents the first such effort of its kind undertaken by the AASA in more than a decade. AASA is committed refined this work over time thus maximizing the benefit to superintendents. This work complements The American School Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study (Kowalski et al. 2010) also sponsored by AASA and available from Roman & Littlefield Publishers (https://rowman.com).

• Download latest study here. [pdf] This study is available to AASA members only.If you are not a member, become a member today. If you forgot your password click here.

Lots to write about when it comes to FY13 federal funding. (As a reminder, FY13 is the federal fiscal year that started Oct. 1, 2012 and provides the federal dollars that will be in school district budgets in the 2013-14 school year).

First, the sequester kicked in March 1. Details are available in an earlier blog post, along with this quick overview of the impact on school construction bonds. 

Second, last week the Senate acted on a Continuing Resolution (CR, the procedure that allows federal government to avoid a shut down even though Congress hasn't finished its appropriations work). You'll recall the current CR expires on March 27, meaning Congress has to act before Easter, to either provide a final appropriations package for FY13 or to provide another CR. At this point, it looks like Congress will provide a final appropriations process.

In talking about this year's appropriations process, Joel Packer (Executive Director for the Committee for Education Funding) pointed out that even this action,which Congress will point to as an accomplishment or as 'doing their job' is, at best, still 6 months late and only half the job (they only funded half the year; the first half was funded through the CR). Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we all worked under those metrics.....

In follow up to a previous post about the FY13 CR, the Senate is expected to pick up debate on its FY13 appropriations bill. The Mikulski-Shelby substitute has many similarities to the House CR, with one important caveat: like the House CR, all education programs would be frozen at their FY12 levels and subject to the cuts of sequestration. Unlike the House version, though, the Senate bill does NOT reduce all programs by 0.098% prior to sequestration.

Unfortunately, an amendment offered by Senator Harkin was defeated. This amendment, as described in blog post linked in the previous paragraph, would have provided targeted funding increases within the LHHS appropriations bill, with a focus on eduction. AASA sent a letter of support for the amendment.

If the Senate adopts this appropriations package, it is anticipated the House will support the Senate version, meaning they will have wrapped their FY13 work (6 months late), giving them time to now focus on resolving sequestration and digging into FY14. Speaking of, a quick overview on what we know about the FY14 budget proposals from the House and Senate:

• Chairman Ryan's budget proposal passed the budget committee along party lines and is expected before the full house early this week. (I will be writing our letter of opposition later today. Check back later for the letter!) In the meantime, the Committee Report on  the budget is available, for your reading pleasure.
• Senate Budget Committee Chairperson Patty Murray (D-WA) released her budget last week.
• As a basis of comparison, the Ryan budget keeps the cuts of sequestration and provides funding for non-defense discretionary at levels that are 12% BELOW the post-sequestration cuts. The Murray budget maintains modest investments in education and avoids sequestration. The Murray budget does decrease the non-defense discretionary cap by $160 billion over ten years, but it does include $20 billion in stimulus/infrastructure spending, including funds for school construction.
• Both the Ryan and Murray budgets come in at $966 billion, though the Murray budget avoids sequestration.
• The Ryan budget, though dead on arrival at the Senate, remains the framework from which we can expect House appropriators to take their cues. This means a drastic gap between the discretionary funding levels for the House and Senate appropriations committees, which all but guarantees us a path to a CR for FY14.

First, school construction bonds and sequestration: One of the most popular questions I have received in the last week relates to how sequestration will impact the Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs), Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs), and Build America Bonds (BABs). At this point, the clarification is that "Payments made to issuers on or after March 1, 2013, through and including September 30, 2013, will be reduced 8.7 percent, unless Congressional action changes the reduction percentage".

AASA and others are perplexed by this clarification, as there was no appropriation involved in the bond. There was apparently initial disagreement between IRS and OMB, though OMB ultimately decided sequestraiton applied to these direct payment bonds. The IRS issued guidance earlier this month.

The IRS Tax-Exempt Bond office has issued guidance on the effect of the sequester on direct pay bonds. Payments made to issuers on or after March 1, 2013, through and including September 30, 2013, will be reduced 8.7 percent, unless Congressional action changes the reduction percentage. Issuers should complete Form 8038-CP as directed in the instructions. The form and the instructions continue to be the versions that were revised as of January 2012. Issuers will receive correspondence concerning the reduction after they have filed the form.

Effect of Sequestration on Certain State & Local Government Filers of Form 8038-CP: Pursuant to the requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, certain automatic reductions will take place as of March 1, 2013. These required reductions include a reduction to refundable credits under section 6431 of the Internal Revenue Code applicable to certain qualified bonds. The sequester reduction is applied to section 6431 amounts claimed by an issuer on any Form 8038-CP filed with the Service which results in a payment to such issuer on or after March 1, 2013. The sequestration reduction rate will be applied until the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2013) or intervening Congressional action, at which time the sequestration rate is subject to change.

These reductions apply to Build America Bonds, Qualified School Construction Bonds, Qualified Zone Academy Bonds, New Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, and Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds for which the issuer elected to receive a direct credit subsidy pursuant to section 6431. As determined by the Office of Management and Budget, payments to issuers from the budget accounts associated to these qualified bonds are subject to a reduction of 8.7% of the amount budgeted for such payments.

Issuers should complete Form 8038-CP in the manner provided by the Form 8038-CP Instructions. Affected issuers will be notified through correspondence that a portion of their requested payment was subject to the sequester reduction. Issuers should use this correspondence to identify the portion(s) of amounts requested that were subject to the sequester reduction.

Issuers with any questions about the status of refunds claimed on Form 8038-CP, including any sequester reduction, should contact IRS Customer Account Services at 1-877-829-5500.

Second, other school contruction updates: 

• The Senate Budget Resolution includes a $100 billion package targeting infrastructure for roads, bridges and schools to create jobs. AASA is working with the Rebuild America's Schools (RAS) coalition to support these funds as the appropriations process moves forward.
• RAS is working with the House Ways and Means/Senate Finance Committees to entend/strengthen school tax bond programs, especially as both committees start looking at tax reform.

In response to the recent school tragedies and especially Sandy Hook, AASA has partnered with the Department of Education to provide several webinars on what public school districts and superintendents can do to plan for major catastrophic events. The first webinar is May 21, 2013.

FREE WEBINAR: District-Level School Emergency Management for Superintendents

WHEN: Thursday, March 21st, 2013 at 2pm E.T.

Please join the American Association of School Administrators and the U.S. Department of Education on for an overview of the key elements of comprehensive, all-hazards school emergency management for superintendents! This one-hour webinar, District-Level School Emergency Management for Superintendents, will provide an overview of the four-phases of school emergency management (Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery) as well as the critical components and processes of school emergency management, specifically as it relates to the role of the superintendent. Immediately following the 45-minute presentation will be a 15-minute question and answer session, along with information on how to access more information and resources. The webinar is first come, first serve; we strongly encourage you to pre-register! Registration can be accessed at http://rems.ed.gov/webinars/webinar003/

Congress, ever the efficient multi-tasking agnecy <end sarcasm> is starting work on the annual FY14 budget and appropriations process. In case you missed details on how they have yet to wrap the work for FY13 (which started Oct. 1), you can read about that in an earlier blog post. Item to note: FY14 dollars are for the federal fiscal year that starts 10/1/13; these federal dollars will be in schools in the 2014-15 school year.

Here's what we know so far about the FY14 proposals:

First, the White House won’t release President Obama’s FY14 budget until April. This is nearly two months behind the regular timeline.

Ryan Budget: House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan released the House FY14 Budget proposal today. Before I get in to the details of the budget, the main thing to keep in mind is that the budget is dead on arrival in both the Senate and White House. That means it is a messaging piece more than anything.

A few quick overview thoughts: It cuts non-defense discretionary funding (where education is located) to levels far below those of post-sequester caps. For FY14 alone, the new NDD cap would be $55 billion below sequestration levels and $92 billion below the Budget Control Act pre-sequestration cap.

We need to pay attention to what it proposes, however, because it can be a tip to what policy priorities and thinking we can expect to shape any forthcoming legislative proposals from the House Republicans. The budget proposal is quite similar to the one he proposed last year, the one that can (At best) be described as ‘slightly worse than sequestration’. The proposal eliminates the nation’s deficit by 2023. Much of the savings come from repealing the Affordable Care Act. His budget keeps in place the tax revenue from the ACA and its$700 billion Medicare trims and other cuts. The budget also includes the $600 billion increase in tax revenues that came from the fiscal cliff deal at the end of 2012.

The proposal erases the deficit in 10 years thru spending cuts totaling $4.6 trillion over ten years and calling for politically charged changes related to the ACA and tax code. The budget proposal would significantly reduce the top tax rate to 25 percent. The budget includes a host of proposed changes for Medicaid (including capping its growth and reshaping it to a voucher program). The proposal essentially level funds discretionary funding over ten years. At the end of the projected timeline, discretionary spending would be $249 billion below levels that would be reached through current policies. The plan is compliant with budget caps established under the budget control act but does not specify what the split would look like between defense and non-defense discretionary.

The Senate budget is anticipated soon. Senator Murray briefed the Democratic caucus on the budget proposal today, though no information is yet available.

The House passed a long-term continuing resolution to fund federal government for the rest of FY2013 (thru Sept 30 2013). The House CR contains full-year bills for the Department of Defense, military construction and the Department of Veterans. It is a simple CR for the remaining 10 appropriations bills, including LHHS (where education is located). It extends FY12 funding for the remainder of the year, minus an across the board cut of 0.098%. It excludes the previous across-the-baord increase of 0.612% (to bring the FY13 level up to the budget cap as passed in the Budget Control Act). There is only one anomaly for education, which provides $3 million in funds for Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence). The $3 million is actually a transfer from the safe and drug-free school national program. AASA supports funding for Project SERV, but is opposed to using SDFS monies to do so. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul; in this instance, you are draining a fund that addresses school climate to address school safety.

After providing for the balance of the year. The CR makes clear that the funding levels are subject to sequestration. Each USED program would be reduced first by the 0.098% and then the 5.0% sequestration cut. In passing this CR, the House Rules committee denied Rep. VanHollen the right to offer an amendment that would have replaced the full sequester.

In responding to the House CR, House Appropriations Democrats released a fact sheet on the CR. It includes to items related to education:

• The CR underfunds Head Start by $70 million, potentially causing reduced enrollment, even though both House and Senate versions of the FY 2013 L-HHS-Ed bill would have provided significant increases from the FY 2012 enacted level.
• The CR underfunds Child Care and Development block grants by $70 million, forcing more parents to choose between job and child care, even though both the House and Senate versions of the L-HHS-Ed bill provide for significant increases from the FY 2012 enacted level.

The House CR now goes to the Senate. The Senate will start with consideration of a CR as filed by Senator Mikulski. (As of earlier this afternoon, it is expected the House will ultimately adopt what the Senate passes, but that is, as always, subject to change). The Mikulski CR includes full year bills for agriculture; commerce/justice/science; defense; homeland security; and military construction/veterans affairs.

For LHHS (where education is located), it extends funding as a CR with a couple of anomalies. FY13 funding in USED will be the FY12 level for each program/project/activity. These levels would then be subject to sequestration. The Mikulski CR does not include the 0.098% cut that is in the House version. The anomalies include the Project SERV funding as included in the House CR, and IDEA MoE fix (state level) and funding for the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need.

Senator Harkin is expected to offer an amendment that is a full-year LHHS bill (initial details on the Harkin blog). The bill does not increase overall funding for the bill compared to the continuing resolution, but it does provide targeted increases for some programs. It pays for these increases through a small across the board cut (0.127%) .These levels become the base for calculating sequestration. The text of the amendment is not yet available. Until it is, here is what the funding increases would look like (prior to the 0.127% cut and 5% sequestration cut):

• IDEA State grants (=+140 million)
• IDEA Infants and Families (+10 million)
• Title I (+$125 million)
• Impact Aid (+20 million)
• Promise Neighborhoods (+20.1 million)
• Advanced Placement (+6 million)
• Rural Education (+9.5 million)
• Race to the Top (+324,000)
• Funds for Improvement of Education (+13.4 million)
• Department of Education Total (+536.1 million)

Some programs are decreased. These cuts are prior to the 0.127% cut and 5% sequestration cut: Title I Evaluation (-94,000); Transition to Teaching (-7.6 million); School Leadership (-15 million); and Safe/Drug Free (-16.3 million); among others.

The Harkin amendment also includes policy proposals: clarifies that Title I funds can be used to transport homeless children/youth; authorizes SIG funds to be used to implement research-proven, whole-school reform models; allows SEA (w/approval of the Secretary) to provide a state-determined school improvement strategy under SIG (sounds like the 7^th model in the Harkin ESEA bill); allows REAP-eligible districts to modify not more than one element under a school improvement model (again, like the Harkin ESEA bill); and directs USED and HHS to use RttT funds for Early Learning Challenge competition.

There are a handful of policy items related to IDEA: There is a provision that clarifies that penalties paid by states violating maintenance of effort are to be allocated to states that did not violate MoE; clarification that when an LEA fails to meet MoE, the base level calculation for the out-year remains the higher level (consistent with OSEP’s informal guidance letter from April 2012); and clarification that funds received under 611(c) of IDEA can be used to bolster state capacity to meet data collection requirements.

The bill could be voted on as early as tomorrow. You can read a summary of the FY13 CR substitute.

This blog post made possible thanks to our friends at CEF.

Using the OMB sequester report (issued March 1), this chart details the discretionary funding levels for USED programs (and related education programs from other agencies). The total cut to USED is $2.271 billion. The sum total of cuts (including cuts to mandatory programs) within USED is $2.478 billion.

The chart (based on OMOB’s cut of 5% to non defense discretionary programs) calculates the sequester from a a base of the FY13 CR. The FY13 CR level is equal to the FY12 appropriations level plus a 0.612% across the board increase. Please note that USED has yet to issue tables showing program/project/activity level impact. This chart reflects CEF calculations and is subject to change, depending on the final FY13 CR or omnibus appropriations bill.

UPDATED: USED issued a document showing state-level impact for post-sequester allocations for 12 formula programs including Title I, IDEA, SIG, Impact Aid, ELL, and Perkins.

State Waivers: Our friends at the Center on Education progress issued States' Perspectives on Waivers: Relief from NCLB, Concern about Long-term Solutions.  The report “describes states’ early experiences in applying for flexibility from key requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as NCLB waivers, and their plans for implementing the new systems outlined in their applications. Findings from the 38 survey states indicate states believe that the waivers address several of the problems they see with the NCLB accountability requirements, however, many state officials are concerned about what will happen to the programs and policies in their waiver plans if ESEA is reauthorized. These and other key findings that emerged from the survey results are presented in this report.”

USED Announces 11 States Receiving Contintuation SIG Awards: The 11 states receiving continuation grats are: Connecticut—$3.6 million; Kentucky—$7.7 million; Maryland—$6.8 million; Minnesota—$5.5 million; Mississippi—$6.1 million; New Mexico—$4.1 million; Ohio—$20.2 million; South Carolina—$7.4 million; South Dakota—$1.5 million; Utah—$3.4 million; and West Virginia—$3.3 million. See: U.S. Department of Education Announces 11 States Will Receive Funding to Continue Efforts to Turn Around Their Lowest-Performing Schools H/T CEF!

Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates at The School Level: School Year 2010-11: ED recently released this dataset that “contains school level information on the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates calculated by state education agencies in accordance with U.S. Department of Education regulations on ESEA, Title I, published in 2008. The dataset contains information on the number of students identified within the cohort for 2010-11 graduation, along with the percent of those students graduating with a high school diploma within four years. Adjusted cohort rates and counts are reported for the school as a whole, and for key subgroups of students (major racial and ethnic groups, children with disabilities, limited English proficient students, and economically disadvantaged students). The reported graduation rate has been reported in a manner that protects the privacy of individuals within the data. The privacy protections vary based on the n-size of the student group whose graduation rate is being reported. To interpret these data appropriately, please utilize the cohort count that is reported for each graduation rate and reference section 4.1 of the Public File Documentation for details on the privacy protections. For more information on the data file and guidance for its appropriate use, please read the Public File Documentation.” H/T CEF!

Later today, the Senate Commerce Committee will hold an FCC oversight hearing. As part of the hearing, Chairman Rockefeller (longtime advocate and champion for E-Rate) will make the case for increasing the funds available for E-Rate, to help schools and libraries afford their connectivity.

AASA sent a letter of support to the Commerce committee, specifically supporting the infusion of funding for E-Rate, citing--in part--the fact that technology demands are only going to grow as we move forward.

You can read the full letter here. (PDF) 

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee backed 14-4 an amended measure that would authorize $40 million for each of fiscal 2014-2023 for school security, under the Justice Department’s existing Community Oriented Policing Services Secure Our Schools grant program that allows schools to install tip lines, surveillance equipment, metal detectors and other safety measures. The original legislation would have authorized $100 million. AASA, AESA, NREAC, AND NREA sent a letter in support of the legislation last week.

In light of recently issued guidance by OCR regarding the obligation of districts to provide students with disabilities equal opportunities to participate in extracurricular athletics, AASA’s policy team met with OCR. During our meeting we clarified several key points that have been raised by members in response to this guidance.

First, the “equal opportunity” language used in the guidance does not mean, for example, that every student with a disability is guaranteed a spot on an athletic team for which other students must try out. The student’s skill level trumps the responsibility of the district to provide an opportunity for them to participate in an athletic activity, so if a student lacks the skill level to compete, then the district does not have to find a way to integrate the student onto the existing sports team. However, districts should not relegate students with disabilities to serve as team manager, ball boys/girls, water boys/girls, if they can compete with modifications. But if opportunities to serve on sports teams in this capacity are provided to students without disabilities then districts must allow students with disabilities to be assigned these positions on the team.

Significantly, districts have no legal or fiscal obligation to provide new athletic opportunities for students with disabilities under the guidance. Districts only need to provide students with disabilities opportunities within existing athletic extracurricular activities. OCR repeated several times that districts are not required to provide new opportunities for students with disabilities; however, if they do decide to create a new team, the district must support this team equally (meaning that they have uniforms, access to practice fields, transportation, etc). Lastly, when asked whether districts could charge fees to students with disabilities for their participation in athletic events or leagues that they charged to students without disabilities, the answer was yes. OCR urged AASA members to reach out to their regional offices if you have additional questions as they are able to provide more specific technical assistance.

This week and last week, both the House and Senate remain focused on the topic of school safety and school climate legislation and funding. Last Thursday, the House Education and Workforce Committee held a hearing that focused on the role of SROs in school, the important role mental health supports play in ensuring schools are safe and healthy places for students, and the need to allocate additional resources for both school security and school climate measures and programs.

Former AASA President and Loudoun County, VA Superintendent, Dr. Edgar Hatrick, will testify before the Senate Education Committee this Thursday for their hearing on school climate and school safety. Other panelists include the Eric Gordon, Superintendent of Cleveland Public Schools, as well as the National School Psychologist of the Year, Benjamin Fernandez, who hails from Dr. Hatrick’s district in Loudoun County. We anticipate the focus of the will be on best practices for promoting positive school climates and student behavior. Given Chairman Harkin’s role as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, we hope there is a larger discussion of the need for new funding for school climate initiatives particularly in light of the de-funding of programs like Safe and Drug Free, as well as smaller mental health grants, REMS and COPS Secure our Schools grants several years ago.

Additionally, on Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee will be marking up bipartisan legislation that would re-authorize the COPS Secure our Schools grant program. AASA, along with AESA, NREAC, and NREA, sent a letter to the Hill this afternoon urging members of the committee to approve the bill. The authorization for funding would assist districts in ensuring they have deterrent measures like surveillance equipment and locks, two-way radios and other emergency equipment, and training materials for school personnel would enable schools districts to respond to growing school safety and security concerns in these tough fiscal times.

I will be live-tweeting from the Senate Education Committee hearing in case you want to follow the action. The hearing begins at 10 a.m ET on Thursday.

In case you missed it....March 1 came and sequestration was triggered.

This means the 5.1% across-the-board cuts are now a reality, though for schools that pinch won't be felt until the 2013-14 school year. Congress and the Administration (continuing a now 18 or 20 month trend) were unable to reach an agreement to avoid this fiscal crisis, a consequence they dreamed up and issued to themselves.

The President has indicated he will NOT issue a veto for a proposed continuing resolution related to Congress' annual appropriations work (though their track record there is about as successful as their track record on resolving the sequester). This is an important clarification, though: while sequestration and the appropriations process are linked, they are separate and would represent two independent federal crises. Left unresolved, the lack of a CR would likely mean a government shutdown (because that worked so well in the 90s?!) on top of job cuts stemming from sequestration and the resulting economic ripples in the broader economy.

It is anticipated Congress will continue to meet and look to resolve sequestration, but with Republicans opposed to any discussion related to new revenues and Democrats hesitant to give any room related to mandatory program reform, the idea that they could meet in the middle and come up with a compromise still seems a far way off.

So what can you do? These cuts are in place. School districts across the country are working on--and will be finalizing in the next few weeks--their operating budgets for the 2013-14 school year. These budgets will likely reflect the cuts of sequestration. Use the finalized budgets and related job cut projections to reach out to Congress and tell them how the cuts will impact your district. Tell you Representative and Senators what teachers will be eliminated, what academic programs have to be reduced.cut, and how these changes will impact the ability of your district to meet your students' educational needs.

I know this sounds a lot like the type of information we've asked you to share before. It is similar.....but also so different. As of Friday, these cuts have happened and budget pieces are falling in to place. Jobs cuts are now imminent and schools are planning appropriately. Whereas last week there may have been the perception that the cuts were hypothetical or that pink slips wouldn't be issued, the 'other shoe has fallen' and sequestration and job cuts/program eliminations are a reality.

In late January (on a Friday afternoon) the administration released regulations for competitive foods as part of the school nutrition program. The school lunch program was reauthorized in December 2010 as the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act. AASA opposed the legislation given its federal overreach and the unfunded mandates it represents.

Earlier AASA blog posts detail concerns related to the meal pattern regulations, which took effect this school year.

• USDA Lifts Cap on Grains/Proteins for 2013-14 School Year
• USDA Grants Flex for Grain/Protein Caps for 2012-13 School Year
• House Committee Requests Study on Controversial Meal Pattern Regulations

The competitive food regulations--open for comment through April 9--are far less onerous than the school meal pattern regulations, but are still problematic. How does USDA have authority to regulate an darea for which it provides no federal funding?

As a point of overview, the competitive food regulations limit the sale of vending items foods to certain hours in the school day and establish nutritional requirements for competitive foods (including a la carte items in the food line). The regulations do NOT apply to concession stand items (think Friday night football or drama club booster sales at a performance).  

Here is a sampling of the requirements: All competitive foods must:

• Be either a fruit, vegetable, dairy product, protein food, whole-grain rich food or a combination of food that contains at least 1/4 cup of fruits/veggies.
• Comply with a host of caloric/nutrition requirements (including limitations on sodium, sugar, and fat)
• Schools may sell water, low-fat and fat-free milks, along with 100% fruit/veggie juices.

Hat tip to our friends at EdWeek for a concise overview on the regulations.

Last week, First Lady Michelle Obama announced her Let's Move Active Schools campaign, of which AASA is a proud supporter. The program is designed to support schools' efforts to help students reach the suggested one hour of daily physical activity. Under the new initiative, modest grants will be made available for schools (through USED). The GENYOUth Foundation and ChildObesity180 will also be awarding grants. Nike has committed $50 million to the effort over the next five years.

Additional information (including how to involve your school district) is available online:

• Why Active Schools?
• What is an Active School?
• How do I sign up? (Include Activation Grants, Technical Assistance, and more)

Our friends at the Economic Polcy Institute, including Richard Rothstein, the keynote speaker at last month's NCE Federal Relations Luncheon, released What Do International Tests Really Show About US Student Performance? 

The authors are quick to explain the limitations of the data they had available, but do an excellent job of making sincere comparisons between the comparable countries, including those that the US are most commonly compared to. From the author's own executive summary, here are some eye-opening conclusions:

In general, we find that test data are too complex and oversimplified to permit meaningful policy conclusions regarding U.S. educational performance without deeper study of test results and methodology. However, a clear set of findings stands out and is supported by all data we have available:

Because social class inequality is greater in the United States than in any of the countries with which we can reasonably be compared, the relative performance of U.S. adolescents is better than it appears when countries’ national average performance is conventionally compared.

• Because in every country, students at the bottom of the social class distribution perform worse than students higher in that distribution, U.S. average performance appears to be relatively low partly because we have so many more test takers from the bottom of the social class distribution.

• A sampling error in the U.S. administration of the most recent international (PISA) test resulted in students from the most disadvantaged schools being over-represented in the overall U.S. test-taker sample. This error further depressed the reported average U.S. test score.

• If U.S. adolescents had a social class distribution that was similar to the distribution in countries to which the United States is frequently compared, average reading scores in the United States would be higher than average reading scores in the similar post-industrial countries we examined (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom), and average math scores in the United States would be about the same as average math scores in similar post-industrial countries.

• A re-estimated U.S. average PISA score that adjusted for a student population in the United States that is more disadvantaged than populations in otherwise similar post-industrial countries, and for the over-sampling of students from the most-disadvantaged schools in a recent U.S. international assessment sample, finds that the U.S. average score in both reading and mathematics would be higher than official reports indicate (in the case of mathematics, substantially higher).

• This re-estimate would also improve the U.S. place in the international ranking of all OECD countries, bringing the U.S. average score to sixth in reading and 13th in math. Conventional ranking reports based on PISA, which make no adjustments for social class composition or for sampling errors, and which rank countries irrespective of whether score differences are large enough to be meaningful, report that the U.S. average score is 14th in reading and 25th in math.

• Disadvantaged and lower-middle-class U.S. students perform better (and in most cases, substantially better) than comparable students in similar post-industrial countries in reading. In math, disadvantaged and lower-middle-class U.S. students perform about the same as comparable students in similar post-industrial countries.

• At all points in the social class distribution, U.S. students perform worse, and in many cases substantially worse, than students in a group of top-scoring countries (Canada, Finland, and Korea). Although controlling for social class distribution would narrow the difference in average scores between these countries and the United States, it would not eliminate it.

• U.S. students from disadvantaged social class backgrounds perform better relative to their social class peers in the three similar post-industrial countries than advantaged U.S. students perform relative to their social class peers. But U.S. students from advantaged social class backgrounds perform better relative to their social class peers in the top-scoring countries of Finland and Canada than disadvantaged U.S. students perform relative to their social class peers.

• On average, and for almost every social class group, U.S. students do relatively better in reading than in math, compared to students in both the top-scoring and the similar post-industrial countries.

Because not only educational effectiveness but also countries’ social class composition changes over time, comparisons of test score trends over time by social class group provide more useful information to policymakers than comparisons of total average test scores at one point in time or even of changes in total average test scores over time.

• The performance of the lowest social class U.S. students has been improving over time, while the performance of such students in both top-scoring and similar post-industrial countries has been falling.

• Over time, in some middle and advantaged social class groups where U.S. performance has not improved, comparable social class groups in some top-scoring and similar post-industrial countries have had declines in performance.

Earlier this afternoon, USED released a set of press releases detailing the impact of sequestration on the largest district in each state. The roster of districts is listed below; you can access the full set of press releases here.

AASA appreciates Secretary Duncan's outreach and communication about how damaging the cuts of sequestration will be to education. That said, we are disappointed by USED's continued urban-centric approach. As readily as the department collected information on the largest district in each state, they could have also collected similar information for the smallest district in each state or the district in each state that is most reliant on federal funding. We urge the department to consider, reflect on, and share the very real impact of all the nation's public schools, including rural.

Like you, I am on a lot of email lists, chains and groups. Once in a blue moon, an item will land in my inbox that I am compelled to share with our members, including one today!

In conjunction with our work with the Forum on Education Accountability (a group that advocates for ESEA reauthorization, driven in part by a focus on overreliance on high-stakes testing at the state and local level), I received this gem of an email, which lists 21 stories from nearly a dozen states' illustrating growing resistance to high-stakes testing overkill. I've included the articles below:

• Warning from Florida: Ignore Jeb Bush's Bad Advice on Education Policy
• Excess Testing is Major Focus of Huge Austin Rally
• Texas Rally Organizer's Website
• Is Right-Wing School Reform (Texas) Toast -- A Good History of the Roots of the Current Insanity
• Four Ex-Education Commissioners Agree: Too Much Testing
• Even Gov. Perry Supports Review of Testing Requirements (But Embraces Jeb Bush's School Grading Scam)
• Rhode Island Mobilizes Against New Grad Test
• Editorial Blasts Rhode Island Plan to Tie Graduation to Test Scores
• Connecticut Education Chief Seeks Newtown Testing Waiver
• New York School Board Unanimously Endorses High-Stakes Testing Resolution: Model for Other Community Campaigns
• Are New York Test Defenders Covering Up Uncomfortable Data?
• New Jersey Community Meeting Dissects Negative Impacts of High-Stakes Exams
• New Mexico House Resolution Questions State's (Mis)Use of Test Scores
• Kansas Senate Committee Rejects Test-Based Retention
• Teacher Test Law Criticized in Minnesota
• Teacher Survey Shows Record Low Teacher Job Satisfaction
• Good Educators Forced Out by Bad Policies
• Why Art Teachers Have a Problem with Standardized Testing
• Testing at a Crossroads: A Teacher Roundtable
• SAT to be Redesigned to Align with Common Core
• Pearson Boasts About Growing Testing Business
  
  

School superintendents across the nation are bracing for the deep cuts of sequestration, the federal policy consequence for continued Congressional inaction. In response to a call to action issued during AASA’s National Conference on Education last week (and posted to the blog), hundreds of districts across the nation provided details describing what the cuts would look like in their district, reporting jobs cut, programs eliminated, and other negative impacts. (PDF Version)

“If we will be judged by how we treat our children, this move [sequestration]… indicate[s] that we do not prioritize the quality education for all students, who represent the future of our nation.” New York

Nearly 400 responses from 42 states paint a dreary picture as it relates to the nation’s public schools and sequestration. “The blind cuts of sequestration, made regardless of program demand or effectiveness, represent poor, short-sighted policy…” said AASA Executive Director Daniel Domenech. “The cuts represent billions of lost dollars for the Department of education and will affect millions of students, classrooms and teachers by increasing class sizes, reducing programs and eliminating educator jobs.”

School districts are finalizing their budgets for the 2013-14 school year; this is the school year in which federal FY13 funding and policy (including sequestration) would play out in schools. This means school superintendents are bracing for the cuts by building the cuts in to their budgets. When asked how they were preparing for sequestration last summer, more than half indicated they would build the cuts in to their budget.[1] With that budget now being finalized, this latest call to action asked AASA members to detail what the cuts look like:

• More than three quarters of respondents (77.9%) indicated their district would have to eliminate jobs as a result of sequestration.
• School districts will, on average, eliminate between 3.7 and 4.8 instructional positions as a result of sequestration. AASA analyzed the job cuts at two levels, averaging across all respondents (including those indicating they would NOT be eliminating positions) and averaging across only those respondents who will be making cuts due to sequestration. The numbers remain high. When including all respondents, the average district will lose 3.7 instructional positions. When limiting the cuts to only those districts that will eliminate jobs, that number jumps to 4.8 instructional positions.[2]
• Elimination of school/instructional personnel will have impacts reaching beyond school walls. As cited in earlier AASA analysis[3], every 100,000 education jobs lost will result in an additional 30,000 jobs lost in other sectors due to lost spending and those laid off. 
• Using the modest estimate of 10,000 school districts in the nation and the lower average job cut (3.7 instructional positions/district), the single action of sequestration would result in at least 37,000 education jobs, which would result in an additional 13,690 non-education jobs. 
• While these numbers seem lower than previously reported education job cuts, there is an important distinction to be made:
• These cuts cannot be considered in isolation. Education (and non-defense discretionary funding) will not be disproportionately impacted by sequestration.
• Excluding sequestration, non-defense discretionary spending—including education—absorbed a significant and disproportionate cut in federal funding stemming from the recession. In fact, between the FY11 and FY12 annual appropriations process, education funding was reduced by $1.48 billion. Since 2010, more than 50 education programs have been eliminated, a funding reduction exceeding $1.2 billion. As the recession dragged on over nearly four years, the effect of these cuts in federal funding were further compounded by cuts and the state and local level, and their collective impact on the nation’s schools became increasingly more obvious and damaging. 
• Unlike the recession, sequestration cuts will be across the board. This means areas of the economy that were less impacted during the recession will feel the same pain as education. This is perhaps best exemplified on military bases where military families stand to lose a significant amount. Military parents face layoffs and/or pay cuts. Their children likely attend schools that have a significantly higher portion of their overall budget composed of federal dollars (including Impact Aid); this means that the across-the-board, 5% cut of sequestration will be applied to a much larger share of the budget, tying the hands of the school and further impacting that military community.
• More succinctly, the education job cuts will be deep, will be far-reaching and will have ripple effects on the economy. Those ripples, however, will be significantly more noticeable as other job sectors also eliminate jobs and further compound a dire job and economic situation.

Responding to an open-ended item asking about the impact of sequestration, AASA members delivered a very clear message: the cuts will be to areas that most directly impact student learning. The findings are alarmingly consistent with those of AASA’s Economic Impact Survey Series (which examined the impact of the recession on the nation’s schools) and indicate the cuts will be to areas in the budget that directly impact student learning: reducing academic programs, personnel layoffs, increased class size, reducing professional development and deferring technology purchases.

“The bottom line is that kids and society pay the price.” Alabama

The results of this AASA data collection reflected a new harsh reality: for the first time in the four years and 14 surveys AASA has administered relating to the impact of the recession on the nation’s schools, there was a significant increase in the percentage of respondents indicating that special education funding will take a hit. Funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act has historically represented an unfunded mandate for local education agencies, with school districts left to cover the federal shortfall stemming from Congress’ perpetual failure to meet is statutory funding commitment. School districts use local budget funds to cover this shortfall, sacrificing local budget authority and priorities. Statutory requirements related to maintenance of effort meant that the cuts of the recession were concentrated on non-IDEA dollars.

The deep reduction in federal IDEA funding attributable to sequestration, however, represents an obstacle local school districts cannot overcome. “School districts remain severely underfunded when it comes to IDEA. They have yet to receive the full support in federal education dollars for special education students that was promised many years ago…” said Bruce Hunter, AASA Associate Executive Director for Advocacy & Communications. “The cuts of sequestration border on hypocrisy: As the federal government habitually underfunds and considers cuts to IDEA, local school districts are left not only without flexibility to adjust their budgets to changing local fiscal realities, but are also ‘on the hook’ to cover a significantly larger federal shortfall.”

For a deeper look at the potential impact of sequestration on the nation’s public schools, refer to AASA’s Fiscal Cliff Toolkit, a comprehensive set of resources that gives educators and community leaders everything they need to urge Congress to action, including background information on sequestration, a state-by-state analysis of the impact of sequestration, a sample letter to the editor, a draft opinion/editorial piece, and template letters for communicating Congress.

“AASA members pass balanced budgets in a timely manner every year. It is time for Congress to meet one of its fundamental responsibilities—the federal government’s funding and appropriations—in a way that avoids sequestration and puts the nation on track to fiscal growth and stability…” said Domenech. “Now is the time for leadership, now is the time to perform the jobs to which they were elected. It is time for Congress to set aside political posturing and to find common ground in a responsible approach that doesn’t disproportionately impact schools by derailing our national investment in education and long-term fiscal health and competitiveness. Education cuts don’t heal.”

In response to an open-ended item asking about the impact of sequestration, respondents delivered a clear message: sequestration will result in severely negative budget cuts that undermine schools’ academic growth and progress. The responses below are a small sample that represent the broad concerns school superintendents have when it comes to sequestration:

“We continue to systematically reduced our ability to meet the needs of students and provide training for staff. You cannot continue to demand and expect excellence if you do not support the work. At some point you need to stop the rhetoric and fund to the level of expectations.” Washington

“The sequester will negatively impact the student sub-groups who need additional assistance and interventions the most- students from low income families and special education.” Maryland

“It's not just the sequester, it's the whole instability of the system and the constant brinksmanship that affects our educational system and the educators who support our students.” Illinois

“It baffles me that supposedly intelligent people can't get together and make fundamental decisions that will impact millions of K-12 students. “ Maine

“We must not forget the qualitative effect the sequester has on staff morale. No one seems to know for sure how deep or for how long the reductions will occur. It's hard to motivate, challenge, and encourage at-risk students, when you are worried about your current employment or already started to look out of uncertainty in the future.” Kentucky

(Referring to cuts to special education) “Because students already have IEP's in place that specify services, those services must, by law, be provided. What this means to the district is that monies will need to be diverted from another source to cover the costs of programs already in place. This reduces the amount of basic education that can be provided.” Washington

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We can invest in our students now or we can pay to house our inmates later. We, in our system, would prefer to invest in our students now.” Tennessee

“It is unlikely that the local tax payers will be able to pick up the bill for these cuts, and the ultimate impact will be felt with our students receiving less support and services to meet their increasing academic demands.” Vermont

“Making informed decisions about how best to allocate financial resources is always better than arbitrary across‐the‐board mandatory cuts. Elected officials should make the tough choices they were elected to make.” Virginia

“At a time where society demands more from schools and student learning this action would put all schools in direct sight for those that already discount schools and their efforts. We have a great opportunity to make the changes for student improved learning and …now we could face a huge stoppage of effort.” Wyoming

Earlier today, USDA issued a memo that extends flexibility in the meat and grain maximums in school meal patterns.

You'll recall that in December, USDA granted flexibility to state and local operators to lift the maximum/caps in place as it related to weekly ranges for grains and meats/meat alternatives. This flexibility would be in place for the 2012-13 school year.

Today's guidance extends that flexibility through the 2013-14 school year, and means that menus simply have to comply with the meal pattern minimums, for both breakfast and lunch.

Read the full memo.

You are invited to join a call with senior White House officials on Tuesday, February 26 at 10:30am EDT to discuss the President’s call for Congress to replace harmful cuts with a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

Participants must preregister for this teleconference at http://ems6.intellor.com?p=600025&do=register&t=1. Once the participant registers, a confirmation page will display dial-in numbers and a unique PIN, and the participant will also receive an email confirmation of this information. This call is off the record and not for press purposes.

With the sequester's across-the-board cuts scheduled to take effect on Friday, the White House tonight released a report detailing the deep spending cuts for every state. The reports detail the impact of the 5% cut to all programs, including English. Also available are USED projections (state-by-state) for Title I and IDEA.

Democrats and Republicans are both expected to introduce plans to avoid the sequester, though some pretty big questions remain: how do they do so when neither side supports the other's plan and how would they suddenly be able to do something they haven't been able to do in the last 18 months? 

Keep in mind that the across-the-board nature of the cuts will be felt deeper in some districts than in others, as some districts are more reliant on federal dollars, where a larger share of their overall operating budget is composed of federal budget. Five percent of 10 percent (districts where federal dollars are a small share of the overall budget) will have a lesser impact than districts where federal dollars represent upwards of 50 or 60 percent of their budget. This was explained at length (and there's a great national map!) in the AASA Fiscal Cliff Toolkit.

Here are links to each state analysis:

• Alabama 
• Alaska 
• Arizona 
• Arkansas 
• California 
• Colorado 
• Connecticut 
• Delaware 
• District of Columbia
• Florida 
• Georgia 
• Hawaii 
• Idaho 
• Illinois 
• Indiana 
• Iowa 
• Kansas 
• Kentucky 
• Louisiana 
• Maine 
• Maryland 
• Massachusetts 
• Michigan 
• Minnesota 
• Mississippi 
• Missouri 
• Montana 
• Nebraska 
• Nevada 
• New Hampshire 
• New Jersey 
• New Mexico 
• New York 
• North Carolina 
• North Dakota 
• Ohio 
• Oklahoma 
• Oregon 
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

Our friends at the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy released a report today detailing the teen birth rate in our country

USAToday wrote a summary of the report, and the text of their article is below:

The teen birth rate in rural counties in the United States is nearly one-third higher compared to the rest of the country, according to new research from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. This first of its kind analysis shows that the teen birth rate in 2010 in rural counties surpasses that in suburban counties and major urban centers.

Other findings from the new research include:

• The teen birth rate is higher in rural counties than in other areas of the country (43 per 1,000 girls age 15-19 vs. 33) regardless of age or race/ethnicity.
• Among non-Hispanic white teens, for example, the rural teen birth rate (36 per 1,000 girls 15-19) is more than twice as high as that for major urban centers (16 per 1,000 girls 15-19).
• Between 1990 and 2010, the birth rate among teens in rural counties declined by 32%, far slower than the decline in major urban centers (49%) and in suburban counties (40%).
• Rural counties account for one in five teen births in the United States even though they make up only 16% of the overall teen population.
• The difference in teen birth rates between rural counties and other counties was particularly pronounced among teens age 18-19 (75 vs.58 per 1,000 girls 15-19).

“This data provides an answer to a straight-forward but previously unanswered question: is rural teen childbearing higher or lower than in other places?” said Sarah Brown, CEO of The National Campaign. “Clearly the need for efforts to help rural teens avoid too-early pregnancy and parenthood is great.”

The new research is based on National Campaign tabulations using birth data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. Visit www.TheNationalCampaign.org for more information about the new research, including the definition of rural, suburban, and urban areas.

Bruce, Sasha and I flew to Los Angeles this morning for AASA's National Conference on Education. The rain we had today will be gone by tomorrow. Here's to sunny weather the rest of the week!

This year's conference agenda is jam packed with great speakers, though provoking breakout sessions and many great opportunities for networking and having fun. You can find an online version of the agenda here. Full information is available at the National Conference website.

For a concise wrap up of each day's events, check out Conference Daily, led by the award-winning School Administrator magazine staff. 

Here's a run-down of all the advocacy-related events at conference this week. Hope to see you in LA!

• February 20
• Research Roundtable: Superintendents Salary and Benefits Study (JW Marriott)
• February 21
• School Safety (9 am, Knowledge Exchange Theatre, NCE Marketplace, Convention Center)
• Rethinking Federal Policy: School Safety/Climate (11:15 am, Convention Center, Room 308B)
• Federal Relations Luncheon (TICKETED Event, 12:15 pm, Convention Center, Room 408A)
• 2012 Superintendent Salary and Benefit Study (2:30 pm, Convention Center, 304A)
• Getting Ready for IDEA (2:30 pm, Convention Center, 304A)
• February 22
• AASA's 2013 Legislative Agenda (8:15 am, Convention Center, 304B)
• State-ing the Obvious (State and Local Leadership in Education) (8:15 am, Convention Center, 308B)
• A Digital Conversation with Mark Edwards (11 am, Convention Center, 308B)
• Behind the Numbers: AASA Advocacy Research (11 am, KET in NCE Marketplace, Convention Center)
• February 23
• Congressional Update (Appropriations, ESEA, rural, vouchers, etc) (8 am, Convention Center, 308B)

Don't forget to visit Bruce, Sasha and I at AASA Central. Located at in NCE Marketplace, it has everything you need to know about AASA. Come see the great work being done by all of AASA's departments. AASA Central will be open the following hours:

• Feb 20: 2-5 pm
• Feb 21: 8-10 am, 12-3:30 pm
• Feb 22: 9am - 1pm; 4-6 pm

Earlier today, AASA Executive Director Daniel Domenech issued the following call to action for AASA members:

Dear AASA Member,

The cuts of the sequester are drawing ever closer, and it is all but certain that the 5.3% cut will take place on March 1—next week!—and impact federal funds within your school budget for the 2013-14 school year. These cuts would affect millions of students and lead to potentially significant job losses and program eliminations for the nation’s schools, the educators who run them, and the students they educate.

To that end, and in conjunction with AASA’s annual National Conference on Education, I am emailing our full membership to ask you to use AASA’s newest SmartForm to help us gather, analyze and report how the sequester would impact your schools.

Unlike AASA’s Sequestration Invoice, which asked individual members to relay the information to their Congressional Delegation, this SmartForm collects the information in one place. From there, our advocacy team will be able to collect, analyze and report how deeply the cuts of sequestration will impact schools, communicating with Capitol Hill and the Administration.

Using the AASA Sequestration SmartForm is quick and simple:

• Access the form: http://goo.gl/VKcEN 
• On the first page, please list your school district name and address. 
• On the second page, using numbers calculated by AASA’s sequestration calculator, please share the dollar cut your district would face under the sequester for the listed federal programs. 
• On the third page, please report the estimated number of jobs that would be cut and other programmatic/service-related reductions in the 2013-14 school year due to the sequester cuts.

Thank you, in advance, for your help with this. The strength of AASA advocacy rests in the fact that our members remain engaged and active, especially in advocacy outreach on issues as critical as sequestration. Should you have any questions about the sequester or AASA’s SmartForm or sequestration calculator, please email Noelle Ellerson, Assistant Director for Policy Analysis & Advocacy (nellerson@aasa.org).

Sincerely,
Daniel A. Domenech

Earlier this morning, in follow up to this week's State of the Union address, the administration released details around its proposal to expand Pre-K/early childhood education programs. The proposal has three main pillars:

• A partnership between state and federal government to ensure PreK to all four year olds from families living at or below 200 percent of the poverty line.
• Significant expansion of the Early Head Start program. 
• Expanding Nurse Family Partnerships.  

Here's the plan, as released by the White House:

The President’s Commitment to Early Education

A zip code should never predetermine the quality of any child’s educational opportunities. Yet studies show that children from low-income families are less likely to have access to high-quality early education, and less likely to enter school prepared for success. By third grade, children from low-income families who are not reading at grade level are six times less likely to graduate from high school than students who are proficient. Often, the high costs of private preschool and lack of public programs also narrow options for middle-class families.

High-quality early childhood education provides the foundation for all children’s success in school and helps to reduce achievement gaps. Despite the individual and economic benefits of early education, our nation has lagged in its commitment to ensuring the provision of high quality public preschool in our children’s earliest years. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates that the United States ranks 28^th out of 38 countries for the share of four-year olds enrolled in early childhood education. And fewer than 3 in 10 four-year olds are enrolled in high-quality programs.

Preschool for All

• The President’s proposal will improve quality and expand access to preschool, through a cost sharing partnership with all 50 states, to extend federal funds to expand high-quality public preschool to reach all low- and moderate-income four-year olds from families at or below 200% of poverty. The U.S. Department of Education will allocate dollars to states based their share of four-year olds from low- and moderate-income families and funds would be distributed to local school districts and other partner providers to implement the program. The proposal would include an incentive for states to broaden participation in their public preschool program for additional middle-class families, which states may choose to reach and serve in a variety of ways, such as a sliding-scale arrangement.
• Funds will support states as they ensure that children are enrolled in high-quality programs. In order to access federal funding, states would be required to meet quality benchmarks that are linked to better outcomes for children, which include:
  • State-level standards for early learning;
  • Qualified teachers for all preschool classrooms; and
  • A plan to implement comprehensive data and assessment systems.
• Preschool programs across the states would meet common and consistent standards for quality across all programs, including:
  • Well-trained teachers, who are paid comparably to K-12 staff;
  • Small class sizes and low adult to child ratios;
  • A rigorous curriculum;
  • Comprehensive health and related services; and
  • Effective evaluation and review of programs.
• The proposal also encourages states to expand the availability of full-day kindergarten. Only 6 out of 10 of America’s kindergarten students have access to a full day of learning. In order to ensure that our kindergartners spend the time they need in school to reach rigorous benchmarks and standards, funds under this program may also be used to expand full-day kindergarten once states have provided preschool education to low- and moderate-income four year-olds.
• Under the President’s proposal, investment in the federal Head Start program will continue to grow. The President’s plan will maintain and build on current Head Start investments, to support a greater share of infants, toddlers, and three-year olds in America’s Head Start centers, while state preschool settings will serve a greater share of four-year olds.

Quality Early Learning for Our Youngest Children

• The President will also launch a new Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership program, to support states and communities that expand the availability of Early Head Start and child care providers that can meet the highest standards of quality for infants and toddlers, serving children from birth through age 3. Funds will be awarded through Early Head Start on a competitive basis to enhance and support early learning settings; provide new, full-day, comprehensive services that meet the needs of working families; and prepare children for the transition into preschool. This strategy – combined with an expansion of publicly funded preschool education for four-year olds – will ensure a cohesive and well-aligned system of early learning for children from birth to age five.
• The President is proposing to expand the Administration’s evidence-based home visiting initiative, through which states are implementing voluntary programs that provide nurses, social workers, and other professionals to meet with at-risk families in their homes and connect them to assistance that impacts a child’s health, development, and ability to learn. These programs have been critical in improving maternal and child health outcomes in the early years, leaving long-lasting, positive impacts on parenting skills; children’s cognitive, language, and social-emotional development; and school readiness. This will help ensure that our most vulnerable Americans are on track from birth, and that later educational investments rest upon a strong foundation.

 Hat Tip: Wonk Blog, EdWeek,

House Appropriations Committee Democrats released Sequestration Endangers Economy, Jobs, Critical Services and Investments. (Summary)The full report is nearly 40 pages long, and the education information starts on page 12. The projected cuts (bulleted below) were calculated at the 5.35% level.

• K-12 Education: Title I grants to school districts, serving more than 2,500 schools and 1 million disadvantaged students, would see a cut of more than $750 million, which could eliminate more than 10,500 jobs of teachers and aides. 
• Special Education: IDEA grants, serving 6.6 million students with special needs, would be reduced by more than $600 million, which could force layoffs of approximately 7,400 special education teachers and aides. 
• Head Start and Early Head Start: Up to 70,000 children would lose access and up to 30,000 working parents would lose child care services.

This blog post originally appeared in the blog Thinking About Schools, as maintainted by Jere Hochman, Superintendent of Bedford Central School District in New York.

Dear Mr. President:

re: Education, please... 

1. Remind Americans that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence do not include the word “education;" whereas words like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, created equal, unalienable rights, general welfare, blessings of liberty, justice, and domestic tranquility appear often. Those words pretty well cover education (so you can skip right to #4)
2. Headline Supreme Court decisions and legislative action of Brown v. Board of Education, PL 94-142 (IDEA), Title IX, Plyler vs. Doe, and the core values of your Inaugural speech that (finally) launched the 21st century "to our posterity" 
3. Make a statement revising every-year testing to testing only English and mathematics in grades 3, 6, 8, and 11 (transition years as benchmarks of school and district progress), dismantle remnants of NCLB, eliminate RTTT; and then…
4. Shut down the Department of Education and resuscitate the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)
5. Maintain departments that monitor and protect Civil Rights, IDEA, and the Supreme Court rulings and legislation noted above and collaborate with content professional organizations (NCTE, NCTM, and others) to lead educational development
6. Focus HEW on health and welfare (root factors in student achievement), research, convening and educating state leaders, and using its bully pulpit to advocate for Parents As Teachers and other birth to five readiness programs, addressing poverty, knocking down real impediments of every student achieving. 
7. Confront every corporate CEO with their academically demeaning and counter-productive tactics which make money off the backs of kids
8. Leave teaching to career professionals (not teach for awhilers) and collaborate with every union to formulate professional 21st century contracts 
9. Call out every self-proclaimed quick fix reformer and politician to let them know the '50s called and wants their factory model of education back; to encourage them to spend days (not a photo op) in rural, urban, and suburban kindergarten classrooms and maybe give them 125 junior English essays to grade in one weekend. 
10. Re-establish the WPA (Federal Works Project Administration) that built our parents, grandparents and some of our schools, provided opportunities in the arts, built highways and bridges, and created jobs.

Last night, President Obama gave the annual State of the Union address. (Full transcript here.) The President's speech centered on eight topics: reduce the debt; tax code overhaul, create jobs, climate change, immigration reform, EDUCATION, defense/foreign trade, and gun control.

The eight topics all supported the broader theme of the speech, calling to invest in the nation's economic future and bolster the middle class.

For obvious reasons, this post focuses on the education components of the speech. His education comments focused on the entire PreK-college spectrum, with a proposal for early education, K-12 and higher education.

• Early Education: The President proposed a program that, in partnership with states, would make high quality preschool available to every child in America. The expansion would provide incentives/support for states that expand early education offerings, including incentives to offer full-day kindergarten.
• High School: Think Race to the Top High School. The government will work with states to establish partnerships with companies to provide training in STEM to high school students so they can graduate and get good jobs.
• Higher Education: President Obama asked Congress to update the Higher Eduction Act so that it rewards college value and affordability with federal aid. He also announced a College Scorecard that families can use to find schools that offer the best value.

Other education-related items included calling on Congress to vote on the President's package of proposals (including a call for a ban on assault weapons and a requirement for mandatory background checks to buy a gun) and a call for a comprehensive immigration overhaul, one piece of which would mirror the DREAM Act, which provides a path to citizenship for young people who come to the country as young children.

The unfortunate current reality is that sequestration is likely to happen, meaning all federal K12 dollars will be subject to a 5.2% cut. These are the federal funds that will be in your school district budgets for the 2013-14 school year.

One of the questions I get asked most often is 'What can be done to protect Title I and IDEA? Does the department have any flexibility to protect some programs?'

While the technical answer will likely depend on how OMB writes the guidance (do they allocate cuts to the function level, or delve further to the program/project/activity level?), there is the chance that the administration--including Secretary Duncan--will have some say in how 'across the board' the sequester really is.

AASA's absolute priority is to avoid the blind cuts of the sequester; AASA believes that Congress should pick up the work of the failed super committee and identify a blended approach of spending cuts, revenues increases and mandatory program reform. Congress created the threat of sequestration as a consequence; they alone can--and should--act to avoid it.

Given teh likelihood of the sequester, though, I took the liberty of looking at the final appropriations levels within USED and ran a quick analysis to see what relief for Title I and IDEA might look like. 

In early 2012 I blogged about the final appropriations levels for USED; check it out for the full program-by-program analysis. For purposes of this entry, though, I have excerpted the Title I, IDEA and Race to the Top appropriations.

• Title I: $14,516,468,000
• IDEA: $11,577,855,000
• Race to the Top: $548,961,000

The cut of the sequester would be roughly 5.2%. For the federal flagship formula programs, that would translate to roughly:

• $754,856,336 cut from Title I
• $602,048,460 cut from IDEA

Looking at the appropriation for Race to the Top, and knowing that it will likely be level funded in a final CR, it becomes clear that RttT is one way to help protect Title I and IDEA. In fact, picking up on an idea from AASA budget talking points, RttT funds would absorb a significant part of the Title I and IDEA sequester cuts:

• The $548 million from RttT would cover 72.7% of the Title I sequester cuts and 91.2% of IDEA sequester cuts.

Food for thought. As Secretary Duncan prepares to speak before the Senate appropriations committee, this seems a very fitting question to put before the Secretary. Absent Congressional success in avoiding the sequester, what efforts will USED take to protect Title I and IDEA funding in the sequester?

Even if the sequester is avoided, there are likely to be further cuts to USED. What conversation is being held at USED to prioritize authorized programs like Title I and IDEA, protecting those crucial investments?

It is with great pleasure that I announce that AASA assisted in securing a major victory in the fight to improve Medicaid reimbursement for school districts. AASA, along with our hard-working colleagues at NAME, just learned that the U.S. Dept of Education will be formally releasing IDEA Part B final regulations tomorrow that change the parental consent requirements for Medicaid. These final regulations, which take effect on March 18, 2013, will make it considerably easier for school districts to access public benefits for Medicaid-eligible students. Moreover, as the number of Medicaid eligible students grows in states that are adopting the State Medicaid Expansion option from Obamacare, this could lead to a significant new source of funding for districts. To all the superintendents who helped AASA make this happen over the past seven years--Thank you!

The 2006 IDEA regulations related to Medicaid required districts to receive written consent from parents each time or at least every year (depending on the interpretation) a district bills for Medicaid reimbursable services for an individual student. The new regulations only require that written parental consent be given one time during the course of the student’s education and that the district notify the parents each subsequent year of their decision to continue to bill Medicaid for these services. This will greatly reduce the administrative burden on district personnel who spend countless time and resources tracking down parents to consent to Medicaid reimbursement. It will also lead to much larger Medicaid reimbursement rates for districts allowing superintendents to allocate this funding for salaries of in-house or contracted specialized school support staff, equipment costs, or other fungible expenditures.

The new regulations on Medicaid reimbursement should strongly incentivize superintendents to lobby their state leaders to expand Medicaid eligibility because expanding eligibility will enable districts to access millions of additional dollars to support mandated services in their schools. Public school districts have much at stake if their state decides against expanding Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act. Since federal mandates require schools to provide services to children regardless of the availability of funds, an increase in the number of children who become eligible for Medicaid will increase the amount of financial support to the schools for providing those services. While each state is unique and the policy and financial implications must be considered on a state-by-state basis, the benefit to education is indisputable. An increase in the number of children who become eligible for Medicaid will increase the amount of federal reimbursement available to support mandated services provided in the schools without increasing state costs. States that do not expand eligiblity will miss an unprecedented opportunity to support their schools and to help lessen their ongoing financial stress.

Two Minnesota School Districts (Farmington and Spring Lake Park) had the opportunity to work with award winning filmmaker and illustrator Anthony Weeks.

Their collaboration resulted in an illustration of where they are heading as a school district, as both districts look to innovate toward transformative goals. The video they created was designed in such a way so that anyone can use it in their own district or community.

Check out the video: http://youtu.be/B1bOIcnVI3g

Hat Tip: Thank you to Gary Amoroso, Executive Director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators for passing this along.

Earlier this month, USED released reports that may be of interest:

Race to the Top: USED released state-specific reports for 12 Race to the Top grantees, detailing their progress on transforming education at the local level. The reports highlight the second-year work and accomplishments of states awarded funding through the first two phases of Race to the Top: Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island and Tennessee. You can read the press release and state reports.  

Student Assessment Data: USED released student performance data in reading and math for all schools in the country for school years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. This is the first time the Department is releasing school-level state assessment data. You can read the press release or access school-specific data from the following links:

• Mathematics Results, School Year 2008-09 (https://explore.data.gov/d/jie4-w22m)
• Mathematics Results, School Year 2009-10 (https://explore.data.gov/d/hhtw-4eb7)
• Mathematics Results, School Year 2010-11 (https://explore.data.gov/d/r3ix-z65i)
• Reading/Language Arts Results, School Year 2008-09 (https://explore.data.gov/d/mvz4-m3zh)
• Reading/Language Arts Results, School Year 2009-10 (https://explore.data.gov/d/s5rp-twp9)
• Reading/Language Arts Results, School Year 2010-11 (https://explore.data.gov/d/6qru-yfc5)
  

As part of our work with Project 24 (see related blog post), I am passing along information for an online course and webinars that should be of interest to school system leaders.

While a great resource on their own, they are part of the comprehensive approach to assessing and expanding Digital Learning in schools. have you considered signing up for Project 24? Dozens of districts have already started the process. 

Online Course, March 2013: The Digital Learning Transition in K-12 Schools: A Planning MOOC for Educators. This free, Massive Online Open Course for Educators (MOOC-Ed) developed by the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at NC State University, is designed to help educators like you successfully lead the digital learning transition of K-12 education. The focus is on understanding the potential of digital learning; setting goals for your school or district; and planning how you and your colleagues will proceed to achieve those goals. Learn more.

Webinars (February 2013):

Wednesday, February 13 from 2-3:00 p.m. (ET): Planning for Progress in Digital Learning: Introduction to Curriculum and Instruction

Featuring representatives from the Project 24 team of experts—an experienced group of nationally recognized leaders with demonstrated records of success—this webinar will provide insight into how to approach curriculum and instruction in planning for digital learning from the perspectives of a superintendent, chief technology officer, principal, and educator.

Panelists: Michael King, Principal, Dodge City Middle School (KS); Maribeth Luftglass, Chief Technology Officer, Fairfax County Public Schools (VA); Jeremy Macdonald, Teacher, Klamath Falls City Schools (OR); Pam Moran, Superintendent, Albemarle Public Schools (VA); and Bob Wise, President, Alliance for Excellent Education.

Register and submit questions for the webinar online at http://media.all4ed.org/registration-feb-13-2013

Thursday, February 28, 2013 from 2-3:00 p.m. (ET): Planning for Progress in Digital Learning: Introduction to Technology and Infrastructure

This webinar will examine the extent to which the effective use of technology provides tools, resources, data, and supportive systems that increase teaching opportunities and promote efficiency. Panelists will discuss how such environments enable anytime, anywhere learning based on competency and mastery with empowered caring adults who guide the way for each student to succeed. They will also discuss adequacy, quality, and availability of devices; robust network infrastructure; how to provide responsive support; and implementing a formal cycle of review and replacement.

Panelists: Peg Cagle, Teacher, Lawrence Gifted/Highly Gifted Magnet, Los Angeles Unified School District (CA); Sara Hall, Director, Digital Learning Policy, Alliance for Excellent Education; Christine Johns, EdD, Superintendent, Utica Community Schools (MI);
Patrick Larkin, Assistant Superintendent for Learning, Burlington Public Schools (MA); and Jean Tower, Director of Technology, Public Schools of Northborough and Southborough (MA).

Register and submit questions for the webinar online at http://media.all4ed.org/registration-feb-28-2013

AASA was a proud supporter of Digital Learning Day last week. The 2nd annual event was a huge success: More than 25,000 teachers representing over 5 million students participated in school based activities. Not to mention the 50 statewide celebrations, thousands of district level events and your contests, challenges and celebrations! 

Digital Learning, though, is more than just a one-day event. As such, AASA is proud to partner with the Alliance for Excellent Education on Project 24, a call to action on the need for systemic planning around the effective use of technology and digital learning to achieve the goal of "career and college readiness" for all students. It is a one-stop shop of comprehensive district-level planning tools, expert advice, creative ideas, and tangible suggestions from experienced education experts and nonprofit education membership organizations.

The Project 24 framework helps districts address the seven concepts listed below as they engage in their Planning for Progress process. Connections between each of the topics highlight the power of systemic planning to address career- and college-ready standards. Implementation of these learning outcomes will be supported by appropriate technology applications and aligned to the new, higher expectations for learning. The Project 24 framework includes: Academic supports; Budget and resources; Curriculum and instruction;Data and assessments;Professional learning;Technology and infrastructure; and Use of time.

Get Started Today: As an initial step to participating in Project 24, district leaders are encouraged to create a leadership team that will participate in a FREE digital learning self assessment. Requiring no more than two hours to complete, this self assessment includes a series of questions helping each district frame their vision for student learning, begin to recognize various aspects of the system to be addressed, and specify how technology can help align these efforts to achieve higher college- and career-ready standards. Learn more.

Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan announced the release of a request for applications for the latest round of USDA’s Farm to School grants. These grants help eligible schools improve the health and wellbeing of their students and connect with local agricultural producers.

“USDA’s Farm to School grants connect schools with their local farmers, ranchers and food businesses, providing new economic opportunities to food producers and bringing healthy, local offerings into school cafeterias,” said Merrigan. “USDA continues to make improvements to the nutrition of food offered in schools, and investing in farm to school programs is yet another important opportunity to encourage our nation’s kids to make lifelong healthy eating choices.”

This year, three different kinds of grants will be available. Planning grants are intended for schools just getting started on farm to school activities, while implementation grants are available for schools seeking to augment or expand existing efforts. Additionally, eligible non-profit entities, Indian tribal organizations, state and local agencies, and agriculture producers or groups of producers may apply for support service grants in order to conduct trainings, create complementary curriculum, or further develop supply chains, among other activities. Proposals are due at midnight EST, April 24, 2013.

To assist eligible entities in preparing proposals, USDA will host a series of webinars related to the application process:

• March 5, 2013, 1:00 EST – Planning Grants
• March 6, 2013, 1:00 EST – Implementation Grants 
• March 7, 2013, 1:00 EST – Support Service Grants

The Farm to School Grant Program is part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which authorized and funded USDA to assist eligible entities, through grants and technical assistance, in implementing farm to school programs that improve access to local foods in eligible schools. The Act provides $5 million annually to support grants, technical assistance, and the federal administrative costs related to USDA’s Farm to School Program. In this funding cycle, USDA anticipates awarding up to $5 million in grants.

Healthier school meals are a key component of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by the First Lady as part of her Let's Move! campaign and signed into law by President Obama. The new meal requirements are raising standards for the first time in more than fifteen years and improving the health and nutrition of nearly 32 million kids that participate in school meal programs every school day.

Farm to School is one component of USDA's Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food (KYF) initiative, launched in 2009 to coordinate the Department's work on local and regional food systems and create new opportunities for farmers, ranchers, consumers and rural communities. An interactive view of USDA programs that support local and regional foods, including farm to school and farm to institution, is available in the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Compass. The KYF Compass consists of an interactive map of USDA-supported local and regional food projects and an accompanying guide to programs and results. In October 2012, the map was expanded and now includes projects from nine other federal agencies.

Earlier this week I updated the AASA Sequester Toolkit to reflect the adjusted sequester cut (5.2%).  I wanted to link to updated program-by-program and state-by-state analysis for the impact of the sequester:

• Impact of Sequestration on Federal Education Programs
• Impact of Sequestration on Federal Education Programs

One of the more popular pieces of AASA's Sequestration toolkit is the excel invoice, which allows users to input their FY12 federal allocation (for programs including Title I, IDEA, Perkins and Title II) and then see the dollar calculation for cuts related to the sequester.

In light of the CBO report released today (see related blog post), AASA has updated the sequester invoice. Use it to raise awareness with your Congressional delegation and community members. Weigh in to tell the story of how the sequester will impact your school district. Urge Congress to take action to avoid the sequester.

Access the updated sequestration spreadsheet (Excel) and check out the full AASA Sequestration Toolkit. 

Three things from the Hill today: CBO announces adjustments in economic projections (including sequestration cuts); President Obama calls on Congress to take action around the sequester; House Member Cantor makes education speech (vouchers, anyone?!)

• Earlier today, the Congressional Budget Office released The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023. The updated report looks at the prospects for the nation's economy in the next ten years. The report adjusts it's projections around the sequester, in part to reflect changes attributable to to the fiscal cliff deal in 2012 and the Sandy Supplemental. The deficit for FY13 is down to $845 billion (from $1.089 trillion in FY12). The depth of the sequester cut is reduced to 5.2%.  
• Ezra Klein (Washington Post Wonk Blog) gives a really great overview of the budget outlook in six charts. I've linked to it here, and bullet his top-line takeaways:
• The federal deficit in 2013 is expected to be under $1 trillion for the first time in five years.
• Under current law, federal debt is projected to hover around 73 percent of GDP for the next five years.
• In the next decade, both federal revenues and spending are projected to be higher than their long-term average.
• Health care spending and interest payments on the debt are both rising as a percentage of GDP, while spending on everything else is falling.
• The economic news is bleak, too.
• Growth is expected to pick up after 2014, but US unemployment will stay elevated for years to come.
• Also today, the President called on Congress to take action to delay the sequester. While his plan is light on details beyond calling for a balanced plan of revenues AND spending cuts, it is anticipated more detail will emerge in the next day or two. At this point, it seems the goal is to avoid/defer the sequester for the remainder of FY13 (through the end of September).
• The White House released these related talking points:
• We can strengthen the economy and lay the foundation for long term middle class job growth by reducing the deficit in a balanced way. And while the President has already worked with Congress to cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion, there’s more to do. 
• The President is prepared to work with Congress through the regular budget process to reduce the deficit by a total of $4 trillion by cutting more spending and eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthy.
• While it’s critical to keep building on the $1.4 trillion in spending cuts the President has signed, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. Deep, indiscriminate cuts to things like education and training; energy and national security will cost us jobs, and slow down our recovery. 
• The proposals the President put forward during the fiscal cliff negotiations are still very much on the table. The President has offered sensible reforms to Medicare and other entitlements. These reforms would reduce our government’s bills by reducing the cost of health care, not shifting all the costs to middle-class seniors, or the working poor, or children with disabilities. 
• But modest reforms to our social insurance programs have to go hand-in-hand with a process of tax reform, so that the wealthiest individuals and corporations can’t take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans. 
• Leaders in both parties have identified the need to get rid of these loopholes and deductions. There’s no reason we should keep them when we’re trying to reduce our deficit. 
• But while work towards a total of $4 trillion in deficit reduction continues, we face a set of urgent deadlines that threaten the jobs of thousands of Americans working in education, clean energy, and national security. And if Congress doesn’t act by March 1^st, then cuts to education will kick kids out of Head start, there will be fewer food safety inspections, fewer mentally ill adults will get the treatment they need, and we’ll fund fewer research projects that could help produce homegrown clean energy and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
• If Congress can’t finish its work on the full budget by March 1^st, they should at least pass a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would delay the economically-damaging effects of the sequester for a few more months until Congress finds a way to replace those cuts with a balanced solution. 
• We have already seen the effects that political dysfunction can have on our economic progress. The drawn out process for resolving the fiscal cliff hurt consumer confidence. The threat of massive automatic cuts has already affected business decisions. 
• So Congress needs to act to protect investments that are helping grow our middle class and keep our country safe. Our economy is poised to take off, but the last thing we can afford is a self-inflicted wound from Washington.
• Cantor Education Speech: House Majority Leader Cantor delivered his Make Life Work speech (hat tip, again, to Wonk Blog!). There were elements related to education, including a proposal that echoes of things articulated by Governor Romney in his presidential campaign, including portability of money and vouchers.

Last week, AASA members had the opportunity to participate in a call with USED staff (including Secretary Arne Duncan) to hear about the department's proposals as they relate to school safety. The conversation also included David Esquith, Director of the Office of Safe and Healthy Students.

The call lasted only 30 minutes, but included both an overview of the administration's proposals and time for Q&A with AASA members.

Not surprisingly, the adminstration's overview was an exact summary of the proposal as previously reported on this blog (see related AASA blog posts here and here).

AASA advocacy staff covered the conversation via twitter. Check out the @Noellerson twitter handle, and a brief summary of Q&A is included below:

• Secretary Duncan was clear to reiterate that the use of funds for activities related to school safety hinges on Congress' willingness to appropriate them in the annual federal budget/appropriations process. While there is some work the adminstration can take (i.e., competitive priority to allow for use of COPS funding for SROs or technical assistance for REMS), Duncan was clear that this involves Congressional support and that this cannot be  DC ply....it's important for Congress to hear from it's constituents.
• Secretary Duncan also made it very clear how important it is for communities to decide what is needed most, and repeated his sentiment about LEA flexibility in implementing mental health access and treatment, school resource officers, and other school safety initiatives.
• When asked about the administration's proposal for FY14 funding for mental health fisrt aid, Duncan responded that is would be a discretionary competitive grant program run out of HHS.
• Asked about the proposal related to school safety/emergency response plans, USED indicated that it would not be a mandate for all school to review their plans. Rather, it would be a coordinated effort by USED to provide protocols/best practices to facilitate review and/or modifications/changes.
• A school official from the Columbine, CO district asked how USED is planning to identify pragmatic responses, with a particular focus on collaboration within/between agencies. Secretary Duncan was quick to response that Justice/HHS/USED need to group together to coordinate on this and recognized the need to refer to expertise that is already there, and to include a series of conversations with stakeholders, as well.
• Secretary Duncan clarified that "....one of the things we can do well is bring people together. We don't want to mandate it, but we can facilitate it."
• Esquith provided a timeline for when USED will have models of good plans and resources for how to develop/implement good plans and best practices related to comprehensive management plans. That information will be available by May 2013.
• The final question came from a small community in central New York (close to this blogger's hometown!) reiterating the critical role SROs can play in smaller communities who may not have their own police force. SROs can play a crucial role in these settings, as the first responder best positioned to save lives and preventing more loss. The caller wanted to relay the importance of smaller communities having the option to pursue SROs, and emphasize the need for flexible support for SROs, to which Secretary Duncan reported that the administration is working to establish a competitive priority within COPS to allow for FY13 COPS funding to be used for SROs.
  
   

AASA's Assistant Director for Policy Analysis and Advocacy, Noelle Ellerson, will be joining Bob Wise (President for the Alliance for Excellent Education) and Jim Kohlmoos (CEO, National Association of State Boards of Education) in a webinar titled Countdown to Digital Learning Day: A Vision for the Path Ahead.

You'll recall that AASA is a proud supporter of Digital Learning Day. The national event is taking place on Wednesday, February 6, 2013 and local events are popping up all over the country with more than 17,000 teachers already signed up to participate representing more than 3.3 million students. We urge you to make plans to host local activities and sign-up TODAY to join tens of thousands of educators in a wave of innovation sweeping across our nation’s schools.

Participation is free and open to all interested parties. This is a great opportunity to highlight teachers doing great things and your efforts to promote the effective use of technology in education. Take a look at http://www.digitallearningday.org/participate/ for ideas on ways you can participate.

It’s been a while since I did a comprehensive overview of AASA’s advocacy efforts and where we stand. With a new year, a new Congress, and a recently updated legislative agenda (pending governing board approval at NCE…have you registered yet?), I am going to walk through, in a series of blog posts, what is going on on Capitol Hill and how AASA’s advocacy team is working for you. I've covered a lot of topics over a handful of quick blog posts. I've linked to--and listed them--below:

• 113th Congress: Climate of Collaboration or Chaos?
• Misc.: Noteworthy Reports and Tidbits
• Fiscal Cliff
• Sequestration
• Debt Ceiling and Annual Appropriations
• Reauthorizing ESEA?
• 113th Congress: Committee Rosters (Harkin to Retire!)
• USED Releases ESEA Waiver Info
• President's Plan to Protect Our Children and Communities

Even with this blogging blitz, there are aspects of the AASA advocacy portfolio that still need an update. Check back later this week for information about school lunch, education technology, e-rate, and other components of our policy agenda.

My money is on the latter of these two. It is anticipated that this Congress—though fresh off an election that saw Democrats pick up seats in both the House and Senate—will be as politically partisan (if not more so) than the previous Congress. As a point of reference, that would be the 112^th Congress that failed to finalize appropriations bills on time, was unable to reauthorize ESEA, and pushed the nation to the verge of federal shutdown and global economic insecurity a handful of times. There are several factors that contribute to this:

• Political Capital and Time: Both of these are limited. When the fiscal cliff conversations at the end of 2012 fell apart from one comprehensive discussion about sequestration, debt ceiling, and fiscal cliff into stand alone discussions for each of the three, the amount of political capital and time available for any other discussion (ie, ESEA reauthorization) was severely limited.
• Elections: Sure, it’s barely two weeks in to the new Congress. Sure, the next elections are nearly two full years away. These two realities aside, there remains but a short window of opportunity where Congress can act on priorities before House members and those Senate members in-cycle begin aligning for the 2014 elections.
• Multitude of Must-Dos: There are a lot of competing priorities that Congress must address. IN addition to eating up limited political capital and time, they represent energy-draining discussions that, as each one unfolds, limits the window of opportunity for any other legislative priority (for us eduwonks, that includes ESEA). These include: sequestration, the annual appropriations process for FY13 (already past-due), FY14 appropriations, the debt ceiling, and school safety/gun control.

• The President's State of the Union is scheduled for February 12.
• Our friends at Whiteboard Advisors conduct a monthly survey of education ‘insiders’, gauging their thoughts on trends in the education policy arena. The January 2013 report was released last week. Here are a few interesting findings:
• 63% of Insiders think ESEA Reauthorization will take place after January 2015.
• 60% of Insiders think that states will put more, or much more, emphasis on digital learning in 2013, whereas only 29% feel the same way about emphasis at the Federal level.
• Insiders are evenly split 50/50 in their views about whether the Sandy Hook tragedy will catalyze additional funding or legislative measures for school safety.
• Each year, Pew Center on the States releases a report providing an overview of State of the State addresses across the county. The 2013 edition was released last week; you can read it online. One of the featured ‘Issues to Watch’ is State Testing. You can read that analysis here.
• Senate Democratic Leadership bills: On Tuesday, the Senate Democratic leaders reserved the first ten bills for their priority issues. Three of the ten relate to education, though they are light on detail (that is, think of them more as placeholders): 
• S. 2, Sandy Hook Elementary School Violence Reduction Act
• S. 3, Strengthen our Schools and Students Act
• S. 4, Rebuild America Act (includes school modernization)

 Helpful Reports and Articles

• House Budget Committee Democrats released FAQ About Sequestration Under the Budget Control Act of 2011
• The National Center for Education Statistics released Projections of Education Statistics to 2021. A key finding: Enrollment in elementary and secondary schools rose 6 percent between 1996 and 2010 and is projected to increase an additional 7 percent between 2010 and 2021.
• As I tweeted earlier last week, NCES released Public School Graduates and Dropouts from the Common Core of Data: School Year 2009–10. The report finds that using the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) methodology the graduation rate for public high schools students in 2009-10 was 78.2 percent.

Let’s go back to the start of the year. Before 2013 started, there was a brief moment where it looked like all the stars could align for Congress to tackle a comprehensive fiscal deal: avoiding the sequester, mandatory program reform, spending cuts, revenue increases, raise the debt ceiling, look at tax code. Then, we apparently woke up from that dream and realized that we were—once again—a nation teetering on a cliff.

This cliff was three-pronged: tax extenders were expiring on December 31 and the sequester ‘kicked in’ January 2. I blogged about the fiscal cliff deal in an earlier post, but have also outlined the details below:

What’s IN the Fiscal Cliff Deal

• The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill increases the deficit by $3.97 trillion over ten years, compared to current baseline.
• Income Tax Rates: Makes permanent the Bush income tax rates for individuals earning less than $400k (families earning less than $450k). For households above these thresholds, the top rate will rise from 35% to 39.6%.
• Sequester: The bill delays the onset of the sequester’s automatic, across-the-board cuts by 2 months. The two months of cuts are replaced by $12 billion in new revenue and $12 billion in spending cuts.
• The $12 billion in discretionary cuts is split evenly between defense and non-defense spending ($6 billion each). The cut lowers the current discretionary cap for FY13 ($2 billion each) and FY14 ($4 billion each).
• Capital Gains/Dividend Tax Rates: Capital gains and dividend tax rates will increase from 15% to 20%.
• Alternative Minimum Tax: The AMT was levied to ensure the wealthiest Americans paid their fair share of taxes. It was not indexed for inflation but has historically been patched to ensure a growing portion of middle-class families aren’t caught in its net. This fiscal deal makes the AMT permanently indexed to inflation.
• Limits Tax Breaks for High-income Households: Limits how much individuals making $250k (couples making $300k) may take in itemized deductions and personal exemptions.
• Tax Breaks for Working Families: Five year extension of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (claimed for college-related expenses); the Child Tax Credit; and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
• Business Tax Incentives: The bill extends a handful of tax breaks for business for two years, including the production tax credit for wind project developers, research/development tax credit, and a measure allowing for bonus depreciation.
• Unemployment: Continues a federal extension of unemployment benefits for one year.
• Medicare Doc Fix: Prevents a scheduled cut in Medicare reimbursement.
• Farm Bill: Congress was unable to pass the farm bill, which was set to expire. The fiscal cliff bill includes a 9-month extension for certain portions of the farm bill.
• Estate Tax: The estate tax will rise from 35% to 40% (with the first $5 million in assets exempted).
• Congressional Pay Freeze: Members of Congress will NOT see a pay increase (President Obama had recently authorized a congressional pay raise).
• FICA Increase: The deal does NOT extend the 2% reduction in FICA withholding, meaning wage earners will see a 2% increase in tax withholding in paychecks starting in January 2013. This 'new rate' (6.2%) is the same rate as in 2010 and prior years. That translates into about $1,000 less per year for an individual earning $50,000.

Education-Related Tax Provisions in the Fiscal Cliff Deal (Hat Tip: CEF!)

• Permanently extends expanded Coverdell Education Savings Accounts
• Permanently extends the expanded exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance
• Permanently extends the expanded student loan interest deduction
• Permanently extends the exclusion from income of amounts received under certain scholarship programs.
• Permanently extends the arbitrage rebate exception for school construction bonds
• Permanently extends tax-exempt private activity bonds for qualified education facilities
• Temporarily extends the American Opportunity Tax Credit (Five years)
• Temporarily extends the deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers. (2 years: 2012 and 2013)
• Temporarily extends the above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition related expenses. (2 years: 2012 and 2013)
• Temporarily extends the Qualified zone academy bonds (QZABs) allocation of bond limitation. The provision extends the QZAB program for 2012 and 2013 providing $400 million in bond volume per year.
• Temporarily extends the tax credit for research and experimentation expenses. (2 years: 2012 and 2013)

What’s NOT in the Fiscal Cliff Deal

• Debt Ceiling. The debt ceiling debate from 2011 is what triggered the process that brought us to sequestration now. The debt ceiling was raised then, but our nation has already reached that higher cap. Treasury Secretary Geithner announced on Monday (12/31) that the nation reached the debt ceiling. The treasury has enough flexibility to cover about two months worth of borrowing, but that means we should brace ourselves for another equally rough conversation about raising the debt ceiling in late February/early March.
• Sequester: The bill delays the cuts of the sequester by two months (to March 1). This creates a new deadline over spending cuts that coincides with the above mentioned debt ceiling discussion.
• Tax Code and Mandatory Entitlement Spending: The fiscal cliff deal didn’t address any of the nation’s long-term fiscal issues, including tax code and mandatory program reform.
• Annual Appropriations Process: Congress has yet to conclude its annual work for federal funding in FY13, which started October 1 (Not that its any comfort, but Congress very rarely finishes its appropriations work on time, instead relying on continuing resolutions). The current CR for FY13 expires March 27, meaning Congress will have to pass another CR (or finish the appropriations bills!) to avoid a federal government shutdown.
• Keep in mind, Congress will technically start their work on FY14 (starting Oct 1, 2013) in February, when President Obama releases his budget proposal.

Bottom line? The sequester is likely to happen, and the depth of the sequester cut in 2013 is likely to be closer to 5.1% than the previously reported 8.2%. There are a couple of reasons for this; read on to learn more, including analysis as to when/whether the sequester will happen.

As mentioned above, the cut of the sequester would be roughly 5.1%. This would translate to a cut of $2.6 billion for USED. This is just for 2013. When it comes to FY14-21 (the outyears of the sequester timeframe established in the Budget Control Act). The cuts will be deeper, as the discretionary caps are even lower than initially established. It would mean a cut of (roughly) $745 million in Title I, $594 million in IDEA state grants, and $89 million in Perkins. This cut to USED would put overall funding at the Department to pre-2004 levels.

The sequester is set to hit March 1, and it increasingly looks like the pending cuts will become a reality. Repealing the full sequester would cost $960 billion. The White House is looking for an even split (50/50) between spending cuts and revenue, and Republicans are opposed to new revenues. The sequester cuts will be calculated from current funding levels. Which is an interesting calculation, since Congress has yet to finish the funding bills for the year (see the related blog post on appropriations/ the continuing resolution). Just know that the cuts of the sequester will be taken from the continuing resolution level, which is slightly higher than FY12 levels.

Both sides of the aisle are increasingly candid with their conclusion that the sequester is likely to happen. A recent National Journal article captured this sentiment: “Republicans and Democrats in the Senate appear to be coming to the same conclusion on spending, namely that once unthinkable, draconian cuts designed to force a more reasonable compromise may be much harder to undo than anyone ever imagined.”

One of the changes in the fiscal cliff deal at the end of 2012 adjusted the sequester cuts for 2013 down slightly. The second contributing factor is related to Superstorm Sandy and the emergency supplemental bill that Congress is working to pass. The emergency funds being made available to states impacted by the storm are NOT exempt from the sequester. This means that the cut of the sequester in 2013 (an absolute dollar amount) will now be applied to a pie of federal funds that is larger than it was before the funds became available. So, a fixed dollar amount, applied to a larger ‘pie’, means a smaller slice (ie, the percentage will fall).

I say this a lot, but it bears repeating: just because schools have to pass balanced budgets on time doesn’t mean Congress has to. And another factoid? Since 1975, Congress has passed all of its appropriations bills on time (before the start of the fiscal year) ONLY FOUR TIMES. With all this good news, here’s where the current appropriations work stands:

Annual Appropriations: FY13 started October 1, and Congress failed (once again) to complete its funding work. When the funding is not finalized, a continuing resolution (CR) is used to allow government to continue operating. CRs provide level funding, meaning that while there are not cuts, there are also not any funding increases. The current CR for FY13 expires on March 27. Through some technical adjustments attributable to the Budget Control Act and pre-determined funding caps, this CR includes a slight increase (0.612%).

With the current CR expiring March 27, it adds to another perfect storm: Congress will be working to wrap FY13, the introduction of the President’s FY14 budget, the sequester, and any residual effects of the debt ceiling debate. A long-term CR to finish FY13 is possible, though it is more likely to see another short-term CR.

The President’s budget proposal, typically released in February, is now expected to be out in March. AASA will prepare its usual budget response.

Debt Ceiling: The House passed HR 325, “The No Budget, No Pay Act” by a vote of 285-144. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill next week, and the White House will not oppose it (see related SAP). The bill extends the debt ceiling until May 18, which in reality means that the debt ceiling won’t need to be raised until sometime in July, as the Treasury would—as it has before—use ‘extraordinary measures to prevent the default for a couple of months.

Don’t hold your breath! A recent poll of education insiders finds that most believe reauthorization won’t be completed before 2015. There is definitely momentum to reauthorize ESEA, though it may not be enough to overcome the multitude of other political pressures/realities:

• Leadership: Senator Harkin (chair of the Senate committee that reauthorizes ESEA) announced his retirement in 2014. While this gives him two years to reauthorize the bill, political cynics could speculate that there is little reason for Senate Rs to move forward with a Harkin bill when they could—feasibly—look to better political positioning after the 2014 elections.
• Political Capital and Time: Both of these are limited, and much of the limited supply available for this Congress will be consumed in the contentious debates around the sequester, school safety/gun control, the debt ceiling, and annual appropriations.
• Competing Priorities/Approaches Between the Chambers: When we look at the bills in each of the House and Senate at the end of the 112^th Congress, they represented very different in their approach to reauthorizing the same law. In addition to the challenge of getting either bill out of its respective full chamber, the bills would face an uphill battle in reconciling differences.
• Adminsitration Priorities: The Administration and Department—regardless of their role as primary implementers of the federal ESEA law—is unlikely to move to support full reauthorization. It’s easy to see why. With their ESEA waivers, they’ve been able to get states (35 to date) to implement their policy priorities without waiting for the traditional democratic process or reauthorization or providing appropriate federal support (you’ll remember that to states use their own personnel, political and fiscal resources to bank roll the ESEA waiver adventure). Further, the availability of waivers makes the Administration the ‘good guy’ in town, as the only body able to provide relief to schools. Given their concern (lack of support) for either the House or Senate bills, there is little incentive for USED to change course.

I drafted this blog on Friday, and between then and now, as I post this, there has been a monumental announcement: Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee (Which oversees the authorizing bills for federal education programs, like ESEA and IDEA) and Chairman of the Senate Appropriations LHHS Subcommittee (The subcommittee that oversees federal funding for education programs). This dual-leadership role when it comes to education makes him one of the most powerful Congressmembers when it comes to education.

With the announcement that Harkin will not seek reelection in 2014, it means this Congress is his last chance to move ESEA reauthorization (now more than 5 years past due) to completion. See the blog post on ESEA update to read about he interplay of political pressures between the House, Senate and administration.

The House Clerks office has posted the Official Member Telephone Directory for the 113^th Congress and the Official List of Members by State. The Senate has also posted its directory for the 113^th Congress. Not sure who your members of Congress are? Figure it out here.

AASA advocacy meets primarily with offices of members sitting on the budget, appropriations and education committees. I’ve listed the chair and ranking members below, and included links to the relevant roster webpage.

• Senate Budget Committee: Chairman Patty Murray (WA), Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (AL)
• Senate Appropriations Committee: Chairman Barbara Mikulski (MD), Ranking Member Richard Shelby (AL)
• Senate LHHS Subcommittee: Chairman Tom Harkin (IA), Ranking Member Richard Shelby (AL)
• Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee: Chairman Tom Harkin (IA), Ranking Member Lamar Alexander (TN)
• House Budget Committee: Chairman Paul Ryan (WI), Ranking Member Chris VanHollen (MD)
• House Appropriations Committee: Chairman Harold Rogers (KY), Ranking Member Nita Lowey (NY)
• House LHHS Appropriations Subcommittee: Chairman Jack Kingston (GA), Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (CT)
• House Education and the Workforce Committee: Chairman John Kline (MN), Ranking Member George Miller (CA)
• House Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education: Chairman Todd Rokita (IN), Ranking Member Carolyn McCarthy (NY)

USED released a set of materials that provide a substantive overview of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility process—also known as ESEA waivers—by which 34 states and the District of Columbia have applied for and received flexibility regarding certain provisions of ESEA. The intent of these materials—a brochure and five companion fact sheets—is to explain the rationale and intent of ESEA flexibility, as well as address its key components and highlight plan elements for a number of states approved for flexibility.

The brochure and fact sheets can be found on the Department’s updated ESEA flexibility web page: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/. Individual links to the documents are below:

• “The Opportunity of ESEA Flexibility” (brochure) -- http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/resources/esea-flex-brochure.pdf 
• “Protecting School and Student Accountability” (fact sheet) -- http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/resources/protecting-accountability.pdf 
• “Advancing Accountability and Graduation Rates” (fact sheet) -- http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/resources/graduation-rates.pdf 
• “Continuing to Expose and Close Achievement Gaps” (fact sheet) -- http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/resources/close-achievement-gaps.pdf 
• “Turning Around the Lowest-Performing Schools” (fact sheet) -- http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/resources/turn-around.pdf 
• "Supporting Teachers, Leaders, and Local Innovation” (fact sheet) -- http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/resources/supporting-innovation.pdf

USED released a fact sheet that contains additional details on programs that focus on schools, students and teacher. The facts are listed below:

Programs that focus on schools, students and teachers include:

ENSURE EVERY SCHOOL HAS A COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN

• Emergency Management Grants: Proposed $30 million for a new initiative to provide one time grants to States to help schools develop and implement high quality emergency management plans. 
• Model Emergency Management Plans: ED, DOJ, HHS, and DHS will release, by May 2013 guidance and models for how to develop and implement high quality emergency management plans for schools and IHEs. (No cost new initiative)
• Requiring Comprehensive Plans: Congress should require states and LEAs receiving school safety funding from ED to have a comprehensive, up- to-date emergency management plan. (No cost new initiative)

CREATE A SAFER CLIMATE AT SCHOOLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

• School Climate Grants: Proposed $50 million for a new initiative to help 8,000 schools create safer and more nurturing school climates. These grants will assist schools to use evidence-based strategies to prevent and positively intervene to address problem behaviors such as bullying, drug abuse, and poor attendance.
• Model School Climate Survey: The Department will work to develop a model school climate survey to help schools collect reliable data. (Low cost new initiative)
• Best Practices on School Discipline: ED will collect and disseminate best practices on school discipline policies and help LEAs equitably implement policies. (No cost new initiative)

MAKE SURE STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS GET TREATMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

• Grants to Address Pervasive Violence: Proposed $25 million for a new initiative that will help schools address pervasive violence. Funding could be used to offer students mental health services for trauma or anxiety, conflict resolution programs, and other school-based violence prevention strategies.
• National Conversation on Mental Health: Secretary Duncan in conjunction with Secretary Sebelius will launch a national conversation to increase understanding about mental health.
• Key Programs Involving Education Led by Other Agencies

ENSURE SAFE SCHOOLS

• Incentives to Hire School Resource Officers: Proposed use of existing authority under the Department of Justice’s Cops Hiring Grants program to create a preference for grant applications that support school resource officers in this year’s competition. 
• Comprehensive School Safety Program: Proposed $150 million for a new program to provide funds for hiring school personnel, purchasing school safety equipment, training crisis intervention teams, and other school safety activities. School districts and law enforcement agencies could use the funds to hire school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. DOJ will work in close coordination with ED.

MAKE SURE STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS GET TREATMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

• Project AWARE: Proposed $55 million for an initiative to reach 750,000 young people through programs to identify mental illness early and refer them to treatment. This two part program would provide: (1) $15 million for “Mental Health First Aid” training for teachers and others who work with youth to recognize young people who need help and encourage them to seek treatment; and (2) $40 million to help school districts work with law enforcement, mental health agencies, and other local organizations to ensure students with signs of mental illness get referred to appropriate services. Led by HHS.
• Train Mental Health Professionals: Proposed $50 million for a new initiative to train more than 5,000 additional mental health professionals to serve students and young adults. Led by HHS.

While this document highlights the main initiatives that focus on schools and youth, there are a number of additional proposals that touch on these areas included in the President’s plan.

This came across my desk, and I wanted to make you aware of the event. If you are unable to attend the event but are interested in the information (concussions tend to be one of the top topics when we hear about student athlete safety), there is contact information at the bottom of this post.

In an effort to improve appropriate medical care for youth athletes, the National Athletic Trainers’ Association will host the fourth annual Youth Sports Safety Summit in Washington, D.C. The February 5-6, 2013 event, which will launch the National Action Plan for Sports Safety and introduce the Student Athlete’s Bill of Rights, will build upon the success of the NATA-founded Youth Sports Safety Alliance and its prior summits. The Alliance, comprising more than 80 organizations, is committed to keeping young athletes safe.

Momentum continues to build for comprehensive action to protect student athletes. Public interest has remained strong; however, much of the focus remains on concussion in high school athletes despite the higher number of student athletes in all grades that suffer other serious or even fatal injuries.

Those attending will help to finalize the National Action Plan, a new educational initiative to improve sports safety and achieve appropriate medical care in secondary schools. The Plan will focus on four major areas: cardiac events; neurological injuries; environmentally-induced conditions and dietary/substance-induced conditions. The summit will culminate with visits to legislators on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, February 6.

WHEN: Tuesday, February 5, 2013

• 12:30-2:00 p.m.: Briefing
• 2:00-4:00 p.m.: Completion of National Action Plan for Sports Safety

WHERE: Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street, NW, Washington, DC

CONTACT/RSVP:  Robin Waxenberg, 212/489-8006, robin@robwax.com

WEBSITES: www.nata.org or www.youthsportssafetyalliance.org

In case Congress should happen to resolve that minor deluge of fiscal cliff/sequester/debt ceiling any time soon, here are a few of the education-related authorizations and appropriations that have expired. If Congress finds itself looking for something to do, any of the following items are on the 'to-do' list:

• Higher Education Act (certain parts)
• Head Start
• Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
• No Child Left Behind
• Workforce Investment Act
• College Cost Reduction and Access Act (specific to Upward Bound)
• An act to provide for improvement of federal education research, statistics, evaluation, information and dissemination

Hat tip: CEF. You can read the full report, released by the Congressional Budget Office, here.

 Yesterday, AASA was proud to be invited to attend the roll-out of President Obama's gun violence prevention recommendations where the President signed paperwork initiating 23 executive actions and outlined four major legislative proposals aimed at curbing gun violence. In his order, he asked Congress to do the following related to school security:

• Give $150 million for a Comprehensive School Safety program that would enable school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire school resource officers, school psychologists and social workers. The money could also be used to purchase or upgrade school safety equipment and train teams of staff members to assist students in a crisis.
• Provide $30 million in one-time state grants to allow school districts to develop strong emergency management plans
• Provide $50 million to help 8,000 schools train teachers and staff to improve school safety and climate
• Provide $15 million to help teachers and other adults who work with youth provide "Mental Health First Aid," enabling them to identify students with mental health problems early and steer them toward treatment
• Provide $25 million to offer students mental health services for trauma or anxiety
• Provide $50 million to train 5,000 additional meantal health profesionals serving children and young adults. The money would provide stipends and tuition reimbursement for new mental health professionals that want to work with young people, including in school settings.

He also direction action administratively. Specifically, he ordered U.S. Dept of Ed and other agencies to:

• Provide incentives for DOJ grants to police departments to hire school resource officers. The Department of Justice will also
  develop a model for using school resource officers, including best practices on age-appropriate methods for working with students.
• Give schools and other institutions a model for how to develop and implement emergency plans
• Share best practices on school discipline. The Department of Education will collect and disseminate best practices on
  school discipline polices and help school districts develop and equitably implement their policies

In addition, Obama's order stated that Congress should require states and school districts that receive school safety funding from the Department of Education to have comprehensive, up-to-date emergency plans in place for all of their schools. AASA also recommends that all school districts have comprehensive, current emergency plans, and we look forward to discussing how districts would have to report this information to the U.S. Dept of Education, particularly in light of the fact that some states (like CT) already require districts to share their emergency plans with the State Depts. of Ed.

Newtown Superintendent of Schools Dr. Janet Robinson is among a panel of speakers who will testify during a House Democratic Steering & Policy Committee Hearing on Wednesday.

The hearing, called "Gun Violence Prevention: A Call to Action," is being held by Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. The hearing will discuss what can be done to prevent future gun violence and learn from the wide range of experience and expertise presented by the invited panelists.

In addition to Robinson, panelists include:

• Michael A. Nutter, Mayor, City of Philadelphia
• Scott Knight, Chief of Police, City of Chaska, Minnesota and Former Chair of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Firearms Committee
• Ms. Emily Nottingham, Mother of Gabe Zimmerman

The hearing will take place on Wednesday, Jan. 16, at 2 p.m.

• Read more.
• AASA Position Paper on School Safety
• AASA Resources for Schools to Prepare for and Recover from Crisis
  
  

Earlier today, Secretary Duncan issued a letter to local school system leaders, talking about his first term as Education Secretary, looking to his second term, briefly mentioning the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Digital Learning Day

The Alliance for Excellent Education is the proud host of Digital Learning Day - a national campaign that celebrates educators and the potential of technology in education.

The national event is taking place on Wednesday, February 6, 2013 and local events are popping up all over the country with more than 17,000 teachers already signed up to participate representing more than 3.3 million students. We urge you to make plans to host local activities and sign-up TODAY to join tens of thousands of educators in a wave of innovation sweeping across our nation’s schools.

Participation is free and open to all interested parties. This is a great opportunity to highlight teachers doing great things and your efforts to promote the effective use of technology in education. Take a look at http://www.digitallearningday.org/participate/ for ideas on ways you can participate.

Digital Learning Day Digital Town Hall

You can also join Gov. Bob Wise and the Alliance for Excellent Education for the Digital Town Hall on February 6, 2013 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (ET). The Digital Town Hall will focus on how great teaching, combined with effective technology, makes a positive impact on improving America’s schools, particularly those that serve high-risk and high-poverty populations. It will profile teachers, students, schools, and districts that are implementing digital learning in innovative and successful ways, including

• Dysart Unified School District (Surprise, AZ and El Mirage, AZ);
• Quakertown Community School District (Quakertown, PA); and
• Cajon Valley Union School District (El Cajon, CA).

Last year, more than 40,000 people watched this digital event live and more than 3,500 educators participated in the live chat to share resources and best practices.

Sign up now to watch the live simulcast of the Digital Town Hall at http://digitallearningday.eventbrite.com/.

If you aren’t able to coordinate organization-wide activities, we ask that you email the note below to encourage teachers to participate individually. As a registered participant of Digital Learning Day, teachers receive tips and interactive lessons that offer great opportunities to collaborate, celebrate and participate in this important campaign to highlight the potential of digital learning. There are a lot of great ideas, activities, and toolkits available in the “ways to participate” and the “take action” sections of the Digital Learning Day website. For questions, or if you would like to share your story or activities ideas, please contact Rachel Jones.

Each year, Education Week releases Quality Counts, an in-depth look at a relevant, timely topic in education. This year, as reported on this blog here and here, the focus is on school safety and climate. The summary here is based on the full State of the States report.

In addition to a deep look into a specific topic, Quality Counts also includes state report cards detailing key education indicators and evaluating states based on policy efforts and outcomes. The 2013 update includes new information on three of the six indicators. This year’s updated indicators are Chance-for-Success Index, school finance and transition/alignment among stages of education. The other three indicators—updated in the 2012 Quality Counts—include K-12 achievement index, the teaching profession, and standards/assessments/accountability.

Overall, and for the 5^th year in a row, Maryland ranked first, Rounding out the top five were Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Arkansas. The five lowest-ranking states were Alaska, Mississippi, Idaho, Nevada and South Dakota.

The Chance for Success Index examines the relationship between education and beneficial outcomes throughout life. There are 13 indicators that inform the index and they cover the span of childhood thru adulthood in three broad phases: early childhood, formal education, and educational attainment/workforce outcomes during adulthood. Grading in this indicator is relative, meaning each state’s performance on a given criterion is relative to the nation’s top-ranked state on the same indicator. The nation as a whole received a C+ in the Chance for Success Index.

The Transitions and Alignment indicator looks at sate policy efforts to improve coordination between points of transition in the education pipeline. State activity is monitored around a set of 14 individual policies, and a state’s final score is determined by the number of policies the state has implemented. The 2013 national average in Transitions was a B-. Georgia made history in this category this year, earning a perfect score, having enacted all 14 policies.

State rankings for school finance were determined by a set of eight school finance indicators. Four measures focus on spending patterns, four focus on the distribution of resources within a state. State ranking here is calculated like that in Chance for Success; that is, each state’s performance is relative to the nation’s top-ranked state on the same indicator. The 2013 national average was C, with Wyoming receiving the only A grade!

The above post was a quick overview; here’s a more detailed look. I urge you to poke around the interactive graphics!

Education Week State of the States: States Show Spotty Progress on Education Gauges

• State Report Cards Map: A quick visual representation of state-by-state grades
• Hands On: Create Your Own Grade……give different indicators different weights, see what you get!
• State Highlight Reports ($4.95 for a PDF of your state report data)

Each year, our friends at Education Week take an in-depth, 360-degree look at an issue, topic, or debate within education. This year’s topic is school climate/school safety; work on the collection is the culmination of months of effort, and the editors and contributors had no idea how perfectly timed and relevant this issue of Quality Counts would be, especially in the context of increased focus on school safety, mental illness and gun safety.

The collective report—thru numerous articles, infographics, data and features—highlights just how much a school’s social and discipline environment can and does impact its students’ ability to learn, and its teachers’ ability to teach. AASA’s legislative agenda and policy priorities are, understandably, focused on improving schools through curriculum and personnel, which includes discussion about testing, standards, accountability and funding. Beyond that, though, the legislative agenda has increasingly reflected the thinking of AASA’s members and recognition of the fact that elements of school climate are huge factors in student, teacher and school success, and that peer relationships, perceived/actual levels of safety and school security/discipline matter. In fact, AASA’s Executive Director Dan Domenech leads AASA’s efforts to Educate the Total Child, a campaign centered on the belief that it is time to get back to the basics of supporting the total child—including physical and mental health, along with the development of fundamental, lifelong learning skills.

The takeaway of the report is that discipline and school safety policies—like other education policy discussions—evolve over time and shift with views on what works, what is relevant, and what is possible. To that end, the report looks at discipline policy, student ability to cope with academic and personal pressures, the role of parent and community groups and school design, among other issues, to explore the multitude of factors that shape and impact the school climate debate arena.

You can access the full report. I’ve also linked to some particulars in the report that caught my eye:

• Discipline Policies Shift With Views on What Works
• Related graphic: Timeline of School Safety/Security
• Restorative Justice Offers Alternative Discipline Approach
• Suspension and Expulsion: Data Analysis & Interactive Graphic 
• Educator Attitudes: Graphic on School Climate and Safety

Sasha Pudelski, who handles advocacy related to school climate and safety, also blogged about this report.  

Check the next blog post for a look at the second half of the report, detailing the State Report Cards!

A new EdWeek survey of 1,300 school personnel on school climate and school safety had some interesting results. I have noted a few below, but encourage you to read the complete series of articles on school climate that are part of this report as well as the survey at EdWeek.org. Here’s the link to the survey: http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2013/school-climate-gauging-attitudes.html

A few findings of interest:

• 83% of school administrators think school climate is a very important factor in student achievement.
• 54% of teachers, compared with 46% of administrators believe school discipline policies affect student achievement.
• Almost 80% of school administrators believe social and emotional development is given the “right amount” of attention in their schools, whereas only 55% of teachers believe this is the case and 40% of teachers indicated there was “too little.”
• 76% of educators (teachers and admins) believe in-school suspension is effective in reducing student misbehavior; 60% believe law-enforcement referrals work; 48% of educators think zero-tolerance policies are successful; 46% think out-of-school suspensions are effective and 41% think expulsions work. (Personally, I found it surprising to me how many educators preferred law-enforcement referral to out-of-school suspensions, zero-tolerance and expulsions).
• 32% of school administrators think bullying rarely occurs in their schools; 16% of teachers believe bullying rarely occurs.

In case you have a need to contact your Congressional Delegation, both the House and Senate have released their directories for the 113th Congress. Check them out: House  Senate

Sequester: I cannot emphasize this enough: the final fiscal cliff deal did not resolve to issue of the sequester. The fiscal cliff deal just kicked the can down the road. The cuts of the sequester are still looming on the horizon and—absent Congressional action—will kick in March 1.

Getting a little wonky here, read on for some intricate detail (beyond the earlier blog post) related to the sequester: Should the sequester occue in FY13 (anytime before Sept 30, 2013), the total cut would be just over $85 billion (Take the original FY13 cut ($109 billion) and subtract the $24 billion reduction from the fiscal cliff deal). The lower amount of $85 billion would still be split evenly between defense and nondefense spending, roughly $42.7 billion each.

Given that shift in numbers, the actual percentage cut would vary from the 8.2% that OMB is projecting and that AASA has reported. Our friends at CEF have calculated that the new percentage cut would be 5.9%. This would be a cut of $2.9 billion for USED, compared to the previously projected $4.1 billion. At this point, it is safe to keep calculating an 8.2% cut based off FY12 allocations.

Impact Aid: In the context of the current sequester situation, Impact Aid will have a bit of a buffer, attributable to additional funds made available in the continuing resolution. The administration authorized funds for the program to last beyond the current six-month CR (the one that expires Mar 27). When the cuts come, they will still be calculated immediately and would ultimately still impact 2012-13 payments. Having bought a bit of time, the concern now is how much Impact Aid funding will be cut through the final sequester deal and the annual appropriations process, and to what extent it delays/reduces the ability of USED to increase payments beyond base payments already made for the current school year.

Committee Rosters: Updates to the House Budget/Appropriations Committee Roster blog post: Rep. Quigly (D-IL) and Rep. Owens (NY) were appointed to the appropriations committee.

In follow up to an earlier blog on updated House Budget and Appropriations Committee rosters (and a previous post on roster changes to the authorizing committees, here’s what we know in terms of which members will serve on the Senate committees that oversee the allocation of federal funding.

Senate Appropriations (Full Committee)
Changes: For the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Inouye (D-HI) passed away in December, and Sen. Mikulski (D-MD) will now be chairperson. The Democrats will hold 16 seats on the full committee, including 3 new members and 1 remaining vacancy. Republicans will have 14 seats on the committee, including 2 new members. Sen. Cochran (MS) is term-limited as ranking member of the committee, a spot likely to be filled by Sen. Shelby (AL).

Democrats

• Barbara A. Mikulski, Chairman, (MD)
• Patrick J. Leahy (VT)
• Tom Harkin (IA)
• Patty Murray (WA)
• Dianne Feinstein (CA)
• Richard J. Durbin (IL)
• Tim Johnson (SD)
• Mary L. Landrieu (LA)
• Jack Reed (RI)
• Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ)
• Mark Pryor (AR)
• Jon Tester (MT)
• Tom Udall (NM) New
• Jeanne Shaheen (NH) New
• Jeff Merkley (OR) New

Republicans

• Thad Cochran, Ranking Member (MS)
• Mitch McConnell (KY)
• Richard C. Shelby (AL)
• Lamar Alexander (TN)
• Susan Collins (ME)
• Lisa Murkowski (AK)
• Lindsey Graham (SC)
• Mark Steven Kirk (IL)
• Dan Coats (IN)
• Roy Blunt (MO)
• Jerry Moran (KS)
• John Hoeven (ND)
• Mike Johanns (NE) New
• John Boozman (AR) New

Not Returning To 113^th Congress

• Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)
• Herb Kohl (D-WI)
• Ben Nelson (D-NE)
• Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)

Still in 113^th Congress, No Longer on the Committee

• Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
• Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Changes: Democrats will have 10 seats on the subcommittee and Republicans will have 8. Democrats have three vacancies (Inouye, Kohl, and Brown) and Republicans have 2 (Bailey Hutchison and Johnson).

Democrats

• Tom Harkin, Chairman (IA)
• Patty Murray (WA)
• Mary L. Landrieu (LA)
• Richard J. Durbin (IL)
• Jack Reed (RI)
• Mark Pryor (AR)
• Barbara A. Mikulski (MD)

Republicans

• Richard C. Shelby, Ranking Member (AL)
• Thad Cochran (MS)
• Lamar Alexander (TN)
• Mark Steven Kirk (IL)
• Lindsey Graham (SC)
• Jerry Moran (KS)

Senate Committee on the Budget
Changes: In the 113^th Congress, the Senate Budget Committee will have 12 Democrats (including 3 new members) and 10 Republicans (including 1 new member). The Democrats will have a new staff director.

Democrats

• Patty Murray, Chair (WA)
• Ron Wyden (OR)
• Bill Nelson (FL)
• Debbie Stabenow (MI)
• Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
• Mark Warner (VA)
• Jeff Merkley (OR)
• Chris Coons (DE)
• Tammy Baldwin (WI) New
• Tim Kaine (VA) New
• Angus King (ME) New

Republicans

• Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member (AL)
• Charles E. Grassley (IA)
• Michael B. Enzi (WY)
• Michael D. Crapo (ID)
• Lindsey Graham (SC)
• Rob Portman (OH)
• Patrick J. Toomey (PA)
• Ron Johnson (WI)
• Kelly Ayotte (NH)
• Roger Wicker (MS) New

Not Returning To 113th Congress

• Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Still in 113th Congress, No Longer on the Committee

• Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)
• Mark Begich (D-AK)
• John Cornyn (R-TX)
• John Thune (R-SD)

In follow up to yesterday’s blog post on roster changes to the authorizing committees, here’s what we know in terms of which members will serve on the House committees that oversee the allocation of federal funding.

House Appropriations (Full Committee)
Changes: For the 113^th Congress, Republicans will have 29 members on the House Appropriations Committee. As of today, there are six new members and one remaining vacancy. Democrats will have 22 members, including six new committee members. Other changes (departures from Congress and the committee) are bulleted below:

Republicans

• Harold Rogers, Chairman (KY)
• C.W. Bill Young (FL)
• Frank R. Wolf (VA)
• Jack Kingston (GA)
• Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ)
• Tom Latham (IA)
• Robert B. Aderholt (AL)
• Kay Granger (TX)
• Mike Simpson (ID)
• John Culberson (TX)
• Ander Crenshaw (FL)
• John Carter (TX)
• Rodney Alexander (LA)
• Ken Calvert (CA)
• Jo Bonner (AL)
• Tom Cole (OK)
• Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
• Charlie Dent (PA)
• Tom Graves (GA) 
• Kevin Yoder (KS) 
• Steve Womack (AR)
• Alan Nunnelee (MS)
• Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA) New
• Chuck Fleischmann (TN) New
• Jeff Fortenberry (NE) New
• David Joyce (OH) New
• Thomas Rooney (FL) New
• David Valadao (CA) New

Democrats

• Nita M. Lowey, New Ranking Member (NY)
• Marcy Kaptur (OH)
• Peter J. Visclosky (IN)
• José E. Serrano (NY)
• Rosa DeLauro (CT)
• James P. Moran (VA)
• Ed Pastor (AZ)
• David E. Price (NC)
• Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA)
• Sam Farr (CA)
• Chaka Fattah (PA)
• Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (GA)
• Barbara Lee (CA)
• Adam B. Schiff (CA)
• Michael M. Honda (CA)
• Betty McCollum (MN)
• Steve Israel (NY)New
• Tim Ryan (OH) New
• Dutch Ruppersberger (MD) New
• Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL) New
• Henry Cuellar (TX) New
• Chellie Pingree (ME) New

Not Returning To 113^th Congress

• Jerry Lewis (R-CA) 
• Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
• Denny Rehberg (R-MT)
• Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH)
• Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
• Steve Austria (R-OH)
• Norm Dicks (D-WA)
• John W. Olver (D-MA) 
• Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY)
• Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-IL)
• Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ)

Still in 113^th Congress, No Longer on the Committee

• Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY)

House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Changes: The subcommittee will have 8 Republicans and 5 Democrats. As of today, there are 4 Republican vacancies and 2 Democrat vacancies. For the Republicans, Chairman Rehberg lost his reelection bid and will not be returning to the subcommittee, nor will Reps. Lewis or Flake. Rep. Lummis, while returning to Congress, will not be returning to the committee/subcommittee. For the Democrats, Rep. Lowey (NY) will now be an ex officio member of all subcommittees, creating another vacancy on the subcommittee. Rep. Jesse Jackson (IL) will not be returning to Congress. At this point, republicans have

Republicans

• Jack Kingston, New Chairman, (GA)
• Rodney Alexander (LA)
• Kay Granger (TX) 
• Mike Simpson (ID)

Democrats

• Rosa DeLauro, Ranking Member (CT)
• Lucille Roybal-Allard, Calif.
• Barbara Lee, Calif.

House Committee on the Budget
Changes: In the 113^th Congress, there will not be a change of leadership on the budget committee. Republicans will have 22 members, including 4 new members, with one vacancy remaining. Democrats will have 17 seats, and as of today, that includes 3 new members and 6 vacancies. Additional changes (Congressional exits or off the committee) are bulleted below:

Republicans

• Paul D. Ryan, Chairman (WI)
• Tom Price (GA) 
• Scott Garrett (NJ)
• Mike Simpson (ID)
• John Campbell (CA)
• Ken Calvert (CA)
• Tom Cole (OK)
• Tom McClintock (CA)
• Jason Chaffetz (UT)
• James Lankford (OK)
• Diane Black (TN)
• Reid Ribble (WI)
• Bill Flores (TX)
• Mick Mulvaney (SC)
• Tim Huelskamp (KS)
• Todd Young (IN)
• Justin Amash (MI)
• Todd Rokita (IN)
• Rob Woodall (GA)
• Marsha Blackburn (TN) New
• Scott Rigell (VA) New
• Vicky Hartzler (MO) New
• Jim Renacci (OH) New

Democrats

• Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member (MD)
• Allyson Y. Schwartz (PA)
• John Yarmuth (KY)
• Bill Pascrell Jr. (NJ)
• Tim Ryan (OH)
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)
• Gwen Moore (WI)
• Kathy Castor (FL)
• Barbara Lee (CA) New
• David Cicilline (RI) New
• Denny Heck (WA) New

Not Returning To 113^th Congress

• Todd Akin (R-MO)
• Frank Guinta (R-NH) 
• Heath Shuler (D-NC)

Still in 113^th Congress, No Longer on the Committee

• Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
• Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)
• Justin Amash (R-MI)
• Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
• Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) 
• Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
• Betty McCollum (D-MN)
• Michael M. Honda (D-CA)
• Karen Bass (D-CA)
• Suzanne Bonamici (OR)

The House and Senate have announced which members will serve on the committees overseeing education policy and legislation. To see if your state or district has increased its education clout as a result of changes to committee membership, see the list below.

Few changes were made the Senate side: John McCain was replaced by new South Carolina Senator Tim Scott. Three new Democrats were added to the Committee to replace members who either retired or who changed committees: Tammy Baldwin (WI) Christopher S. Murphy (CT) and Elizabeth Warren (MA).

There were substantial changes made to the House Education Committee’s members and leadership. Rep. Todd Rokita (IN) will now be chairing the committee previously led by Duncan Hunter (CA) that focused on K-12 policy. Rokita did not introduce any education legislation during his first term on the Committee. In addition, Republicans replaced some retiring or un-reelected members with four veteran representatives and three newly elected members, two of whom are from Indiana. The members who departed the Committee but remain in Congress are: Rep. Bob Goodlatte (VA), Rep. Richard Hanna (NY), and Rep. Kristi Noem (SD). Susan Brooks (IN) Richard Hudson (NC) and Luke Messer (IN) are the three newbies. The four veterans are: Tom Price (GA), Kenny Marchant (TX), Matt Salmon (AZ) and Brett Gurthrie (KY); Guthrie previously served on the Committee.

Democrats made changes to the Committee as well replacing members who retired or who changed committees. On the Democratic side of the committee, six members were added to replace retiring members, three of whom served previously on the Committee. The veterans returning to the Committee after taking time-off in the last Congress are: Joe Courtney (CT), Jared Polis (CO) and John Yarmuth (KY).The following members are new to the Education Committee in the 113th Congress, but are not new to Congress: Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (Mariana Islands), John Yarmuth (KY) Frederica Wilson (FL) Suzanne Bonamici (OR). Here is the complete list of members on both committees.

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Democrats
Tom Harkin, Iowa - Chair
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland
Patty Murray, Washington
Bernard Sanders, Vermont (I)
Bob Casey, Pennsylvania
Kay Hagan, North Carolina
Al Franken, Minnesota
Michael Bennet, Colorado
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin
Christopher S. Murphy, Connecticut
Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts

Republicans
Lamar Alexander, Tennessee - Ranking Member
Michael Enzi, Wyoming
Richard M. Burr, North Carolina
Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Rand Paul, Kentucky
Orrin Hatch, Utah
Pat Roberts, Kansas
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
Mark Kirk, Illinois
Tim Scott, South Carolina

House Committee on Education and The Workforce

Republicans
Rep. John Kline, Minnesota - Chair
Rep. Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, California
Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Rep. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Rep. Tom Price, Georgia
Rep. Kenny Marchant, Texas
Rep. Duncan Hunter, California
Rep. David "Phil" Roe, Tennessee
Rep. Glenn "GT" Thompson, Pennsylvania
Rep. Tim Walberg, Michigan
Rep. Matt Salmon, Arizona
Rep. Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Rep. Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
Rep. Todd Rokita, Indiana
Rep. Larry Bucshon, Indiana
Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina
Rep. Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania
Rep. Martha Roby, Alabama
Rep. Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
Rep. Susan Brooks, Indiana
Rep. Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Rep. Luke Messer, Indiana

Democrats
George Miller, California - Ranking Member
Robert Andrews, New Jersey
Robert Scott, Virginia
Rubén Hinojosa, Texas
Carolyn McCarthy, New York
John Tierney, Massachusetts
Rush Holt, New Jersey
Susan Davis, California
Raúl Grijalva, Arizona
Timothy Bishop, New York
Dave Loebsack, Iowa
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Marcia Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Mariana Islands
John Yarmuth, Kentucky
Frederica Wilson, Florida
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon

AASA, in partnership with the Consortium for School Networking and Gartner, Inc. has developed a new collection of tools to help schools and districts nationwide use student data to strengthen teaching and learning in the classroom. The new resources include nine templates, which provide guidance on how to select and implement Student Information Systems and Learning Management Systems. They can be downloaded from the Closing the Gap: Turning Data into Action website, along with other reports and resources. All are available free of charge to the K-12 educational community.  

Four Finalists Announced
2013 AASA National Superintendent of the Year Program
Finalists selected from 49 state-level winners;
Program celebrates 26^th year

ALEXANDRIA, Va., January 3, 2013 – The American Association of School Administrators has announced four finalists in the 2013 National Superintendent of the Year program. The program, co-sponsored by ARAMARK Education, VALIC, and AASA, in its 26^th year, honors the leadership and exceptional contributions to education of public school superintendents. AASA will announce the 2013 National Superintendent of the Year on Feb. 21, 2013, at the National Conference on Education in Los Angeles, Calif.

The four finalists for 2013 AASA National Superintendent of the Year are:

• Wanda Cook-Robinson, superintendent, Southfield Public Schools, Southfield, Mich.
• Mark Edwards, superintendent, Mooresville Graded School District, Mooresville, N.C.
• C.J. Huff, superintendent, Joplin Public Schools, Joplin, Mo.
• Maryalice Russell, superintendent, McMinnville School District, McMinnville, Or.

"AASA is honored to present these four outstanding superintendents," said AASA Executive Director Daniel A. Domenech, in announcing their names. "They represent the best in school system leadership today. They and their colleagues are at work daily, transforming schools to meet 21^st century standards and to provide quality education for all students."

“We would like to congratulate the four Finalists and all of the State winners for their outstanding leadership, achievement and commitment to K-12 education,” said Dennis Maple, President, ARAMARK Education. “As a longtime supporter of AASA, we are pleased to recognize the accomplishments of superintendents throughout the nation who work so diligently to give our children exceptional educational experiences and bright futures.”

"VALIC is proud to join the American Association of School Administrators and ARAMARK Education in sponsoring the 2013 Superintendent of the Year award," said Bruce R. Abrams, President and CEO of VALIC. "The Superintendent of the Year program provides a wonderful opportunity to recognize the important role Superintendents play in our nation's public schools. On behalf of VALIC, I would like to congratulate the 2013 honorees and offer our profound appreciation for their commitment and dedication to supporting our nation's children."

The four national finalists were chosen from 49 State Superintendent of the Year finalists. The finalists will be at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 8, 2013, where they will participate in a panel discussion moderated by Rich Bagin, Executive Director of the National School Public Relations Association. Also, the finalists will be interviewed by a national blue-ribbon selection panel of educators, businesspeople and government officials. The finalists are:

Wanda Cook-Robinson, superintendent, Southfield Public Schools, Southfield, Mich.

Under Cook-Robinson’s leadership, SPS became the sixth school district in Michigan to be awarded District Accreditation by AdvancED/NCA. She designed new instructional initiatives—including two University Academies in partnership with the University of Michigan-Dearborn, a STEM program, a world cultures K-5 academy, an International Baccalaureate (IB) program, and the introduction of Mandarin Chinese language instruction. She established a partnership with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) to identify strategies to close gaps in reading proficiency. The district is now a model site for ASCD.

Cook-Robinson holds a Ph.D. in instructional technology and an Ed.S. in educational leadership from Wayne State University, a Master’s degree in curriculum development and supervision from the University of Michigan, and a B.A. in special education from Michigan State University. She has received recognition for her work both in education and in the community—

among others, Wayne State University College of Education Alumni Association’s “Distinguished Educator” award and the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Southfield Alumnae Chapter’s “Educator of the Year” award.

Mark Edwards, superintendent, Mooresville Graded School District, Mooresville, N.C.

When Mark Edwards came to MGSD in 2007, his vision for preparing students for life in the 21^st century included a laptop for every child in grades 4 through 12 for their 24/7 use. Since 2007, MGSD’s academic achievement for students testing proficient or advanced on state end-of-grade tests has increased by 16 percentage points from 73 percent to 89 percent. The 4-year cohort graduation rate has improved by 13 percentage points, with 90 percent of seniors graduating. The college-going rate has increased from 74 to 88 percent.

Edwards holds a Ph.D. in education from Vanderbilt University, a M.Ed. in administration and supervision from Tennessee Technical University, and a B.S. in education from the University of Tennessee. Before coming to Mooresville, Edwards served as dean for the University of Northern Alabama’s School of Education, superintendent of Henrico Public Schools (VA) and superintendent of Danville Public Schools (VA). Edwards has received numerous awards and recognitions, including the 2001 Virginia State Superintendent of the Year, a 2002 Tech Savvy Superintendent by eSchool News, and the 2003 Harold McGraw Prize in Education.

C.J. Huff, superintendent, Joplin Schools, Joplin, Mo.

Over 60 percent of the students of Joplin Schools are eligible for free-or-reduced price lunch. After Huff arrived in 2008, the schools adopted a comprehensive plan to address lackluster student performance and low levels of community engagement. Since then, the student drop-out rate has been cut in half, community support has increased, and the district has established 280 partnerships with local businesses, faith-based communities, and social service agencies, to meet student needs. The program has become the model for the creation of Bright Futures, USA, that now serves nearly 50,000 children in a dozen school districts in Missouri.

Huff earned an Ed.D. in education leadership from the University of Arkansas and an M.S. in educational leadership and a Specialist degree in education from Missouri State University. His B.S. in elementary education is from Pittsburg State Universitiy. Among other recognition, he is a recipient of the Bob Grossman Leadership in Communication Award from the National Association of School Public Relations, the Tech Savvy Superintendent of the Year from eSchool News, and the National Together for Tomorrow Recognition for the Bright Futures program from the U.S. Department of Education.

Maryalice Russell, superintendent, McMinnville School District, McMinnville, Or.

Since 2003, Russell has led a number of initiatives to improve student learning, including a comprehensive approach to STEM education that features a FIRST LEGO Robotics team in each elementary school, STEM Summer Camp for girls, a STEM problem-based 90-minute algebra class for all 9^th graders, and an Engineering and Aerospace Science Academy. In 2008, Russell initiated a strategic planning process that has guided comprehensive school improvement resulting in gains in student achievement that are significantly above the state average. MSD is the only district in Oregon with three schools identified by Oregon Department of Education as Model Schools.

Russell earned an Ed.D. Education from Oregon State University and an Education Leadership Certificate from Lewis and Clark College. She has an M.S. in teaching, an M.S. Ed. in administration, and a B.S. in teaching from Portland State University. Russell and the district have received numerous awards for their work. In addition, Russell plays a leadership role at the state level, where she has participated as a member of the Confederation of Oregon Administrative Funding Coalitions and serves as a governor-appointed commissioner to the Quality Education Commission

The annual Superintendent of the Year program is open to all U.S., Canadian, and International School superintendents who plan to continue in the profession. The applicants were measured against the following criteria:

• Leadership for learning – creativity in successfully meeting the needs of students in the school system.
• Communication – strength in both personal and organizational communication.
• Professionalism – constant improvement of administrative knowledge and skills, while providing professional development opportunities and motivation to others on the education team.
• Community involvement – active participation in local community activities and an understanding of regional, national and international issues.

A $10,000 college scholarship will be presented in the name of the National Superintendent of the Year to a student in the high school from which the superintendent graduated, or the school now serving the same area.

The National Superintendent of the Year will receive a jacket emblazoned with the National Superintendent of the Year emblem and, with the three other national finalists, will be recognized at the AASA National Conference on Education on Feb. 21, 2013, during the ceremony announcing the National Superintendent of the Year.

The 49 state-level, Canadian and international winners will also be honored at the AASA National Conference on Education. The winners are:

International Ellen Stern Saigon South International School, Vietnam

Schools

About AASA
The American Association of School Administrators, founded in 1865, is the professional organization for more than 13,000 educational leaders in the United States and throughout the world. The mission of AASA is to advocate for the highest quality public education for all students, and develop and support school system leaders. For more information, visit www.aasa.org. Follow AASA on twitter at www.twitter.com/AASAHQ. Become a fan of the AASA Facebook page at www.facebook.com/AASApage.

About ARAMARK Education
ARAMARK Education provides a complete range of food, facility, uniform and other support services to more than 500 K-12 school districts in the U.S. It offers public and private education institutions a family of dining and facility services including: on-site and off-site breakfast and lunch meal programs, after-school snacks, catering, nutrition education, retail design and operations, maintenance, custodial, grounds, energy management, construction management, and building commissioning. For more information on ARAMARK’s K-12 food service programs, please visit www.aramarkschools.com.

About ARAMARK
ARAMARK is a leader in professional services, providing award-winning food services, facilities management, and uniform and career apparel to health care institutions, universities and school districts, stadiums and arenas, and businesses around the world. The company is recognized as the industry leader in FORTUNE magazine's "World's Most Admired Companies," and as one of America's Largest Private Companies by both FORTUNE and Forbes magazines. ARAMARK seeks to responsibly address issues that matter to its clients, customers, employees and communities by focusing on employee advocacy, environmental stewardship, health and wellness, and community involvement. Headquartered in Philadelphia, ARAMARK has approximately 255,000 employees serving clients in 22 countries. Learn more at the company's Web site, www.aramark.com, or www.twitter.com/aramarknews.

About Valic
For more than half a century, VALIC has served as a leading retirement plan provider for K-12 schools and school districts, as well as for higher education, healthcare, government and other and not-for-profit institutions. As of June 30, 2012 VALIC has more than $67 billion in total assets under management and manages plans for nearly 25,000 groups serving nearly 2 million plan participants. VALIC represents The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries, VALIC Financial Advisors, Inc. and VALIC Retirement Services Company.

# # # # #

One sentence summary: The Congress did act in time to avoid sending the nation over the fiscal cliff, though the final bill fails to address some of the nation’s longer-term fiscal challenges, setting Congress—and the nation—up for another round of heated debate and discussion as early as next month.

Giving credence to the concept of ‘better late than never’, the House passed the fiscal cliff bill the Senate had adopted earlier this week. There was a bunch of political posturing (both sides of the hill, both sides of the aisle) that I won’t detail here. All we need to know is that the nation barely avoided the fiscal cliff. I’ve bulleted the details below. Take care to read the full summary, though, as the deal Congress passed is not comprehensive and sets the stage for an additional set of fiscal conversations in the next two months that could prove just as heated and damaging.

You can read the full text of the bill.

What’s IN the Fiscal Cliff Deal

• The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill increases the deficit by $3.97 trillion over ten years, compared to current baseline.
• Income Tax Rates: Makes permanent the Bush income tax rates for individuals earning less than $400k (families earning less than $450k). For households above these thresholds, the top rate will rise from 35% to 39.6%.
• Sequester: The bill delays the onset of the sequester’s automatic, across-the-board cuts by 2 months. The two months of cuts are replaced by $12 billion in new revenue and $12 billion in spending cuts.
• The $12 billion in discretionary cuts is split evenly between defense and non-defense spending ($6 billion each). The cut lowers the current discretionary cap for FY13 ($2 billion each) and FY14 ($4 billion each).
• Capital Gains/Dividend Tax Rates: Capital gains and dividend tax rates will increase from 15% to 20%.
• Alternative Minimum Tax: The AMT was levied to ensure the wealthiest Americans paid their fair share of taxes. It was not indexed for inflation but has historically been patched to ensure a growing portion of middle-class families aren’t caught in its net. This fiscal deal makes the AMT permanently indexed to inflation.
• Limits Tax Breaks for High-income Households: Limits how much individuals making $250k (couples making $300k) may take in itemized deductions and personal exemptions.
• Tax Breaks for Working Families: Five year extension of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (claimed for college-related expenses); the Child Tax Credit; and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
• Business Tax Incentives: The bill extends a handful of tax breaks for business for two years, including the production tax credit for wind project developers, research/development tax credit, and a measure allowing for bonus depreciation.
• Unemployment: Continues a federal extension of unemployment benefits for one year.
• Medicare Doc Fix: Prevents a scheduled cut in Medicare reimbursement.
• Farm Bill: Congress was unable to pass the farm bill, which was set to expire. The fiscal cliff bill includes a 9-month extension for certain portions of the farm bill.
• Estate Tax: The estate tax will rise from 35% to 40% (with the first $5 million in assets exempted).
• Congressional Pay Freeze: Members of Congress will NOT see a pay increase (President Obama had recently authorized a congressional pay raise).
• FICA Increase: The deal does NOT extend the 2% reduction in FICA witholding, meaning wage earners will see a 2% increase in tax witholding in paychecks starting in January 2013. This 'new rate' (6.2%) is the same rate as in 2010 and prior years. That translates into about $1,000 less per year for an individual earning $50,000.

Education-Related Tax Provisions in the Fiscal Cliff Deal (Hat Tip: CEF!)

• Permanently extends expanded Coverdell Education Savings Accounts
• Permanently extends the expanded exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance
• Permanently extends the expanded student loan interest deduction
• Permanently extends the exclusion from income of amounts received under certain scholarship programs.
• Permanently extends the arbitrage rebate exception for school construction bonds
• Permanently extends tax-exempt private activity bonds for qualified education facilities
• Temporarily extends the American Opportunity Tax Credit (Five years)
• Temporarily extends the deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers. (2 years: 2012 and 2013)
• Temporarily extends the above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition related expenses. (2 years: 2012 and 2013)
• Temporarily extends the Qualified zone academy bonds (QZABs) allocation of bond limitation. The provision extends the QZAB program for 2012 and 2013 providing $400 million in bond volume per year.
• Temporarily extends the tax credit for research and experimentation expenses. (2 years: 2012 and 2013)

What’s NOT in the Fiscal Cliff Deal

• Debt Ceiling. The debt ceiling debate from 2011 is what triggered the process that brought us to sequestration now. The debt ceiling was raised then, but our nation has already reached that higher cap. Treasury Secretary Geithner announced on Monday (12/31) that the nation reached the debt ceiling. The treasury has enough flexibility to cover about two months worth of borrowing, but that means we should brace ourselves for another equally rough conversation about raising the debt ceiling in late February/early March.
• Sequester: The bill delays the cuts of the sequester by two months (to March 1). This creates a new deadline over spending cuts that coincides with the above mentioned debt ceiling discussion.
• Tax Code and Mandatory Entitlement Spending: The fiscal cliff deal didn’t address any of the nation’s long-term fiscal issues, including tax code and mandatory program reform.
• Annual Appropriations Process: Congress has yet to conclude its annual work for federal funding in FY13, which started October 1 (Not that its any comfort, but Congress very rarely finishes its appropriations work on time, instead relying on continuing resolutions). The current CR for FY13 expires March 27, meaning Congress will have to pass another CR (or finish the appropriations bills!) to avoid a federal government shutdown.
• Keep in mind, Congress will technically start their work on FY14 (starting Oct 1, 2013) in February, when President Obama releases his budget proposal.

A quick run down of things happening on the hill this week:

• Senate passes FERPA bill. Yesterday, the Senate passed an amended S3472. The bill expands the number of education agencies exempt from the prohibition on the release of student educational records/personally identifiable information without parental approval. The extended list of exempted agencies grew to include state and local welfare agencies, along with tribal organizations dealing with student placement/care. Link to bill summary.
• Senator Inouye (D-HI) passed away. The Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman from Hawaii passed away yesterday. He was a good friend to education and was recently recognized for his efforts in education funding by the Committee for Education Funding. It is expected that Sen. Leahy (D-VT) will become the new chairman.
• House Republicans announced new members to budget committee: Marsha Blackburn (TN), Vicky Hartzler (MO), Jim Renacci (OH) and Scott Rigell (VA). Still waiting for updates on the appropriations and Education/Workforce committee.
• Fiscal cliff negotiations are ongoing. There is strong momentum toward reaching an agreement by the end of the year, but there is still a lot of middle ground to be covered. As of the time of this blog post, Boehner and Obama were still in negotiations, with Boehner expected to announce a 'Plab B' that would increase tax rates on households making more than $1 million. Details on Politico.
• Traction on Obama/Boehner plan. As of yesterday, President Obama had offered the plan detailed here to Boehner, who has yet to sign off (he's meeting with House Republicans today). The details, bulleted below, are over ten years: Hat tip: CEF.
• Related to education: Cuts discretionary spending by $200 billion ($100 billion for defense and non-defense). Non-defense discretionary (where education funding is) would take the cut over ten years.
• Related to sequester: Turns off the first year of the sequester.
• Raise revenue by $1.2 trillion (up from Boehner's last offer of $1 trillion)
• Raise tax rates for those with income over $400,000. This is a concession from Obama's initial position of $250,000 and Boehner's proposal (see above) for households making more than $1 million. Maintains tax cuts for those making less than $400,000.
• Increase top rate of capital gains/dividends from 15% to 20%
• Extend debt ceiling for two years
• Return estate tax to 2009 parameters
• Balance of revenue (tax) increases would be addressed in next year's tax reform
• Adjusts the CPI calculation used for Social Security benefits and tax brackets to the chained CPI (What is Chained CPI?), but exempts SSI benefits and Social Security benefits for those 85 and older
• $400 billion in health care cuts (details not yet specified)
• $200 billion in other mandatory savings
• Extend unemployment benefits
• $50 billion in new infrastructure spending
• Drop proposed extension of payroll tax cut
• Permanent AMT fix (What's the AMT fix?)
• Permanent Medicare doc fix (What is the medicare doc fix?)
• Some compilation of tax extenders
• Includes/accounts for cuts already sustained by discretionary programs
• Includes/accounts for savings from decreased spending on war

AASA’s Winter Edition of the Legislative Trends Report is now available! This issue focuses on state legislation enacted since 2011 affecting superintendent contracts, eligibility, evaluation, vacancies, tenure, pay, and supervision of other districts. Click here to read the report. 

Every so often (roughly four times a year), Sasha and I put together Policy Insider, a publication that allows us to get 'in the weeds' on a certain education policy issue. We are pleased to release the Winter 2012 edition. This time around, Sasha writes about the administration's recent proposal for Perkins (Career/Tech) reauthorization and I conclude a three-part series on education technology, with a quick write up on AASA's continued efforts (and call to action!) related to the fiscal cliff and sequestration.

Check it out! 

Andrew Hysell, Project Director at Campaign for Healthy Kids, contributed this article to Huffington Post, looking at Race to the Top and Rural.

In his work at Save the Children, Andrew collaborated with a recent applicant (ultimately unsuccessful) to the Race to the Top District competition. This article explores the far-from-new and unique challenges facing rural schools, especially in the context of competitive grants. His article crystalizes the sentiment that concern about competition in rural areas is about capacity, not willingness, to compete.

"When we think of inequities, whether a poor child lives in a city, suburb, or rural community doesn’t seem that relevant. The reality is that children enrolled in small, rural schools may not see much state and federal innovation funding as their school districts struggle to compete for grants. With more education funding being distributed through competitions, it’s important that small, rural school districts get a fair shake." Read the article.

Superintendents: Please take a few moments to complete the District Speak Up Survey. The rest of this blog links to more information, talks about how responses are at an all time high, and calls out those states with a lower response rate. I'd love for you to read the whole post, but not as much as Speak Up would appreciate a few more survey responses!

AASA is pleased to once again be partnering with the Speak Up survey. This year is marks the tenth anniversary of the survey, which asks students and other education stakeholders--including school administrators--how they use, and would like to use, technology for learning.

Have you taken the survey? If not, please do so today! You have until NEXT Friday, December 21!

More background is available in a previous blog post and the general Speak Up 2012 webpage.

Check out these funfacts:

• The voice of superintendents is at a record level. In fact, compared to a year ago, the number of superintendents responses is 64% higher. Wowza!
• It looks like there will be an all-time high for responses, reaching more than 500,000 from 42 states and DC. Thank you to everyone who has completed the survey.

That said, we always welcome more responses, and a handful of states in particular have low response numbers. If you are in Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon or Nevada, help increase the response rate for your state!

USED today announced 16 winners in the $400 million Race to the Top District Competition. You'll recall, from earlier AASA blog posts, that USED received 372 initial applications that were whittled down to 61 finalists

The $400 million will be spread across 16 winners in 12 states: California (3 awards), Colorado, DC, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina (2 awards), Nevada, New York, South Carolina, Texas (2 awards) and Washington.

The awardees represent 12 individual districts, 3 consortia, and one applicant that applied as an individual that appears to be a network of schools:

AASA received a heads up on the list of winners, but a host of questions remain, all likely to be answered in the official USED press release, which will be available at www.ed.gov:

First, the fiscal cliff update. Depending on the minute of the hour, negotiations are either on, or off. Conversations over the weekend involved Speaker Boehner and President Obama, but details are still sparse. The conversation has separate, but related, pieces: what to do about the expiring tax cuts, what to do about avoiding the fiscal cliff, and how to address the sequester. 

Not surprisingly, neither side wants the country to go off the fiscal cliff. How to avoid it, though, is the point of conflict. Republicans want to look at spending cuts, Democrats want to consider tax rate adjustments/increases. Odds are the final deal will include a blend of both, it's just a question of who gives on what and how the final package is assembled.

One possible scenario is to address the expiring taxes in the lame duck. Left unaddressed, those rate changes are immediate. Federal agencies have some flexibility in how/when the cuts of the sequester would be absorbed, so while the cuts come January 2, the impact could be delayed (like what we anticipate for K12 programs, with the actual cuts coming in July).

And in the world of all things ironic.....this is the conversation about avoiding the sequester cuts for this year. You'll recall that the threat of a sequester is in place for 10 years, as part of the the Budget Control Act. That means that, absent a complete deal (whether a Super-Committee-like blended approach of spending cuts/revenue increases/mandatory program reform or  rescission/retraction/amendment of the Budget Control Act) the sequester would remain an annual consequence. There is a sentiment of support for keeping the threat of the sequester in place, as a pressure point/catalyst to get the real work done. Because that worked so well this time around.....<end sarcasm>

Second, the Sandy supplemental: Last week, OMB shares the official request for emergency supplemental appropriations (funds) for Hurricane (SuperStorm) Sandy relief. The package totals $60.4 billion. No funds are made available for the department of education, but there are three significant portions related to the ability to rebuild/repair schools:

• $11.5 billions to FEMA for the rebuilding of public infrastructure (which includes, among other things, schools)
• $15 billion for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), which could be used for public infrastructure spending (including schools).
• $100 million to rebuild/repair Head Start Centers and replace lost equipment and supplies.

Impacted by Sandy? Check out AASA's efforts to provide schools relief. We're offering the ability to make donations and to support AASA's Urgent Need Mini Grant Program, along with AASA's Sandy Relief Center.

AASA's latest toolkit and related economic impact report are getting a lot of traction! Hopefully you have been able to look at the toolkit and examine the role of federal dollars within your state and school district and use the sample invoice and letter to help raise awareness with your Congressional delegation and local media. If not, I hope you can take some time this week.

AASA's toolkit has been covered in EdWeek, by the Committee for Education Funding, the PTA (who made the resource available to their membership) and the National Title I Association (check their blog).

Good news! You'll recall that AASA had expressed concerns with the final school meal pattern regulations for the school lunch program. Our concerns weren't unique; in fact, the House Education and the Workforce Committee echoed our concerns earlier this fall, sending two letters to USDA Secretary Vilsack, urging USDA to reexamine the new meal patterns and calling for a GAO Report looking in to the challenges and burdens LEAs face in implementing the new meal pattern.

On Friday, USDA released new guidance, directed to Regional Directors and Special Nutrition programs, detailing increased flexibility in the meat/meat alternate and grain maximums for the 2012-13 school year.

While you can read the full letter here, the major change is that the Daily/weekly/ maximum for grains and meat/meat alternates is lifted for the 2012-13 school eyar. That is, while there will be NO change in the method of measuring the required daily minimum quantities for grains or meat/meat alternates, state agencies shall consider any SFA compliant with the requirements for grains and meat/meat alternates if the menu meets the daily/weekly minimums for these two components, regardless of whether they exceed the maximums of the same components.

Read the related AP Wire story.

UPDATED FEBRUARY 5: This blog post includes an updated sequestration invoice.

AASA created this toolkit in tandem with our recent Economic Impact report, Federal Public Education Revenues and the Sequester, to help school districts and education stakeholders raise awareness about the true local impacts of the looming cuts of the fiscal cliff and sequester.

URGENT Call to Action: With fiscal cliff negotiations ongoing, it is more important than ever raise awareness of the impact of the sequester on education. Given the extremely local nature of this data, AASA was able to create a ready-to-use Opinion/Editorial (Op/Ed) letter, Letter to the Editor, letters for communicating with Congress, and an invoice and draft letter to quantify and qualify the impact of the sequester on your district.

Please take advantage of these resources. We ask AASA members to work with local media outlets and sources to get this word out!

Data and Maps: The following excel spreadsheets detail (one state per page, 10 pages per file) the share of federal, state and local dollars for every school district in the nation. You can look up your district to see the role of federal dollars in your operating budget. Each file contains LEA data for the state abbreviations in the title. 

• DATA
• State-level analysis: All 50 States (excel)
• Local Analysis: AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA (excel)
• Local Analysis: HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD (excel)
• Local Analysis: MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ (excel)
• Local Analysis: MN MY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC (excel)
• Local Analysis: SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY (excel)
• MAPS: Our friends at ProximityOne put together some pretty compelling visual representations of the data. Check them out!
• ALL Charts
• US map, by LEA and Congressional district, showing federal revenue as a percentage of overall K12 revenue
• Assorted State/Region Specific
• California
• Connecticut
• Florida
• Kentucky
• Ohio
• Minnesota/Wisconsin
• Washington
• Don't see a map for your area? Interested in more? Email Noelle (nellerson@aasa.org).
• Maps and Data FAQ

Resources:

• UPDATED: Fiscal Cliff Invoice: All you need is your current Title I, IDEA, Title II and Career/Tech funding levels. Plug them in to this excel spreadsheet, and it does the rest, calculating the cuts at 5.3% level (as projected by the COB). Save the updated spreadsheet and share it with your Congressional delegation, letting them see how the cuts would impact your district.
• ‘How To’ guide to completing the spreadsheet and template letter (PDF)
• AASA’s Fiscal Cliff Invoice (excel)
• AASA’s Customizable Fiscal Cliff Letter (word)
• Media Tools
• Sample Opinion/Editorial: Customize this letter, using data from the local analysis above and the fiscal cliff invoice. Get the word out to local blogs, radio and news stations, and newspapers!
• Sample Letter to the Editor: Used in conjunction with the Fiscal Cliff Invoice (which quantifies the cuts of the sequester) this letter ‘tells the story’ of the sequester, letting you detail jobs that will be lost, programs that will be eliminated, and the impact on students.
• Fiscal Cliff Toolkit FAQ

 Additional AASA Sequestration Resources:

• Sequestration & the Schools (Audio Ppt): These slides are a great overview of sequestration, what it is, how we got here, how it will impact schools, and what you can do.
• Cut Deep: How the Sequester Will Impact the Nation’s Schools: AASA’s July 2012 report looking at how schools are bracing for sequestration and how they rate the quality/quantity of information about sequestration that they have access to.
• AASA/NAFIS Report: Sequestration and Impact Aid; AASA partnered with NAFIS to highlight the effect sequestration will have on Impact Aid, the lone K-12 federal education program that will be cut in the middle of the current school year.
• AASA Response to Administration's Sequestration Transparency Report
• Webinars:
• AASA Sequestration Webinar featuring AASA's Dan Domenech, Bruce Hunter and Noelle Ellerson (Pressed for time? Check out the slide deck with out the audio!)
• Sequestration: Are Major Cuts to Education Around the Corner? Featuring AASA member Tom Shelton (Fayette County Schools, KY)
• Impact on Advance Funded Programs: An AASA blog post clarifies how the cuts would impact those federal education programs (like Title I and IDEA) that are advance funded. This post has been updated to reflect guidance issued by the Department in late July.
• Other Resources
• Impact of Sequestration on Federal Education Programs (NEA): National Education Association released a detailed analysis of how the sequester will impact education programs. Each page includes a calculation for the dollar amount that would be cut, the number of students that would be impacted, the potential job losses, and identifies a comparable funding year (almost all are pre-recession levels).  They also produced a state-by-state analysis.

Today, AASA released a new report entitled Federal Public Education Revenues and the Sequester. The report, fourteenth in AASA’s Economic Impact Series, examines a comprehensive dataset detailing education revenues for every school district in the nation. In partnership with ProximityOne, AASA was able to analyze total education revenues—split between federal, state and local share—to see what districts and states are disproportionately reliant on federal revenues and to explore the extremely dire situation this creates for schools as the nation braces for the looming ‘fiscal cliff’ and cuts of sequestration.

Looking at the share of federal revenues within school’s operating budgets for FY10 (the 2010-11 school year), AASA found that federal dollars represented—on average—12.3 percent of schools’ revenues. Further:

• More than a quarter of schools (28.7%) had an operating budget where federal revenues represented more than 15% of total budget revenues. 
• Fourteen percent of schools (13.7%) had an operating budget where federal funds represented one-fifth (20%) or more of total budget revenues. 
• In 23 states, more than half of the LEAs had operating budgets where the federal share was above the national average (12.3%) 
• In 15 states, more than half of the LEAs had operating budgets where the federal share was over 15%.
• In those districts and states where federal revenues represent larger portions of overall operating budgets, the cuts of sequestration will be deeper and more damaging.

Funding realities within our nation’s public schools mean that some districts are more reliant on federal revenues. As a result, these districts have to apply the ‘across-the-board’ cut of sequestration to a larger portion of their overall operating budget than their wealthier counterparts. FY10 federal education dollars were higher than current levels, due in part to the presence of emergency education spending and subsequent spending cuts through the annual appropriations process. In an effort to adjust for these changes and to start a conversation about the impact of the sequester on school districts, the second half of the report adjusts the FY10 spending levels to estimate federal funding share within state aggregate operating budgets.

The adjusted projections for FY12 federal share drop closer to the historic level, with federal revenue representing closer to 10 percent of education budgets. The states that reported higher reliance on federal dollars in FY10 continue to have higher portions of education budgets comprised of federal revenues. This data is a clear illustration of the shortcoming of sequestration, as both a policy premise and implemented reality.

Beyond making school-level data available for every school district in the nation, this report and its dataset are a call to action: Congress must act now. Working to avoid reach consensus to avoid sequestration and the fiscal cliff represents the very essence of Congress’ job: As publicly elected officials put in place to make tough policy decisions, the work of avoiding the fiscal cliff and sequester are arguably the toughest decisions Congress will address in the forseeable future.

“Now is the time for action, now is the time for leadership,” said AASA Executive Director Daniel Domenech. “There is no room for error and thoughtless, blunt cuts. We call on Congress to set aside differences and find common ground in a responsible approach that doesn’t disproportionately impact schools by gutting our national investment in education and long-term fiscal health and competitiveness.”

“In a federal fiscal climate with a seemingly laser-focus on ‘cut, cut, cut’, it is more important than ever that our nation’s leaders recognize the important role of education in not only educating students, but in preparing a high-quality workforce for post-secondary opportunity, whether work or college,” said AASA President Benny Gooden, Superintendent of Fort Smith Schools in Arkansas. “Education budgets across the country have persisted through unprecedented cuts attributable to the recession. The additional cuts of sequestration will devastate the already fragile economic reality of our nation’s schools and will set an unacceptably low new baseline for future allocations.”

In conjunction with the release of the report, AASA released its Fiscal Cliff Toolkit, a comprehensive set of resources that utilize this report and dataset to give educators and community leaders everything they need to make urge Congress to action, including background information on sequestration and the fiscal cliff, a sample letter to the editor, a draft opinion/editorial piece, and template letters for communicating with Congress.

“We encourage AASA members and other education stakeholders to use this very powerful data to make the case at the local level—in your communities, with your local media, and with your congressional delegation—that the fiscal cliff is something to be avoided,” said Noelle Ellerson, AASA’s Assistant Director for Policy Analysis and Advocacy. “The report and related toolkit have everything needed to tell an individual district’s story in a compelling manner.”

About AASA
The American Association of School Administrators, founded in 1865, is the professional organization for more than 13,000 educational leaders in the United States and throughout the world. The mission of AASA is to advocate for the highest quality public education for all students, and develop and support school system leaders. For more information, visit www.aasa.org. Follow AASA on twitter at www.twitter.com/AASAHQ.

About ProximityOne

ProximityOne develops geographic-demographic-economic data and analytical tools and helps organizations knit together and use diverse data in a decision-making and analytical framework. We develop custom demographic/economic estimates and projections, geographic and geocoded address files and assist with impact and geospatial analyses. Wide-ranging organizations use our tools (software, data, methodologies) to analyze their own data integrated with other data. Follow ProximityOne on Twitter at https://twitter.com/proximityone. Contact ProximityOne (888-364-7656) with questions about data covered in this section or to discuss custom estimates, projections or analyses for your areas of interest.

Earlier today I was talking with AASA President Benny Gooden. He relayed to me that his board had recently voted to adopt a sequestration resolution that calls on Congress to "...amend the Budget Control Act to avoid sequestration to mitigate the drastic cuts to education that would affect our students and communities, and to protect education as an investment critical to economic stability and American competitiveness."

Feel free to use this resolution as a template in your district. Additional sequestration resources are available in the AASA Sequestration Toolkit.

Accountability under NCLB and the waivers operates primarily by using standardized test scores to identify and sanction students, schools and educators.

The Forum on Educational Accountability calls on Congress and the states to redefine accountability. It proposes that schools, districts and the system as a whole be accountable primarily for taking steps to improve schools. This must involve using multiple forms of evidence gathered over time, including a range of information about student learning outcomes as well as school inputs and processes, and using the data for steps that evidence and research say will improve educational outcomes.

This webinar should be of particular interest to school board members, administrators, teachers, community and policy organizations concerned about accountability in education.

The Rethinking Accountability Webinar will: 

• Explain how NCLB waivers are largely similar to the law, even with states’ differentiated accountability structures, through analysis of the waiver requirements, their general characteristics as implemented, and example(s) of their consequences;
• Discuss the ramifications of holding teachers and principals accountable through evaluation systems using student test scores as “significant factors,” plus present ideas for beneficial and fair educator evaluation; and
• Explain FEA proposals for redefining accountability in ways that support genuine school reform.

When: December 6, 2012; 3:30 – 4:30 pm, EST

Presenters: Maribel T. Childress, Principal, Monitor Elementary School in Springdale, Arkansas; Dr. Adriane Dorrington, National Education Association Senior Policy Analyst on Teacher Evaluations, Effectiveness, and Peer Assistance and Review; Dr. Monty Neill, Executive Director, FairTest; Chair, FEA; Kelly Pollitt, Associate Executive Director of Advocacy, Policy and Special Projects, National Association of Elementary School Principals and Moderator Beth Foley, Senior Policy Analyst, Education Policy and Practice, NEA.

To Participate: On Dec 6, just before 3:30, follow the instructions at https://www302.livemeeting.com/cc/nea1/join?id=S3R8CR&role=attend&pw=FEAEPP310%24.

If you are a first-time user of this system, or for more information about logging on, see detailed instructions at http://www.edaccountability.org/EVENTS.html.

The Forum on Educational Accountability bases its work on the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB, signed by more than 150 national education, civil rights, religious, disability, parent and civic organizations. FEA offers proposals for overhauling NCLB/ESEA regarding assessment, accountability, improvement and opportunity to learn. Its work on accountability includes recommendations to Congress, the report Rethinking Accountability, and a letter to Congress regarding the evaluation of teachers and principals. Go to http://www.edaccountability.org for these papers and more resources.

In quick speed, the Education Department announced the 61 finalists for the FY12 RttT District competition. You'll recall that earlier this month, USED received 372 applications for the 15-25 awards that will total $400 million. 

The 61 applications represent nearly 200 districts from 24 states and the District of Columbia. Thirteen of the finalists are consortia applications, and 48 are individual districts.

Final awards have to be made by the end of the calendar year.

Need a little light reading? Want a quick resource on sequestration and what it means for your schools?

Check out AASA's one pager on sequestration and the schools. It's ready to be printed or emailed, ready for use with school adminsitrators, your school board, the community, or anyone looking for a concise overview of what the sequester is, how we got here and what it could mean for education.

Looking for something more expansive? AASA has a rich set of sequestration resources you can use, in our Sequestration Toolkit.

Click and print today! Sequestration and the Schools (PDF)

Lower Hudson Council of School Superintendents, in collaboration with the Center for Research, Regional Engagement and Outreach at SUNY New Paltz, released a report earlier this year detailing the how the cost to implement the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) mandates well exceed the funding provided by the competitive grant. The superintendents argue that without substantive validation, New York State and U.S. taxpayers “are funding a grand and costly experiment that has the potential to take public education in the wrong direction at a time when we need to be more competitive than ever before.”

For example, in six Rockland County districts, leaders projected a total four-year cost of almost $11 million. This compares with an aggregate revenue of about $400K in Race to the Top funding – a $10 million deficit representing an increase in average per pupil spending for this single initiative of nearly $400 per student. In a sample of eighteen Lower Hudson school districts, the aggregate cost just to get ready for the first year of RTTT in September 2012 was $6,472,166, while the aggregate funding was $520,415. These districts had to make up a cost differential of $5,951,751 with local taxpayer dollars.

In order to meet the expectations outlined in the RTTT grant applications, much is being sacrificed including: teacher and staff cuts resulting in increased class sizes; redirected priorities and unmet facilities’ needs; diminishing professional curriculum; and sacrificed leadership in curriculum development and nontraditional approaches.

Lower Hudson Council of School Superintendents believe New York’s leaders still have the opportunity to change its course before its school systems are radically and unalterably changed, perhaps for the worse, and at a great short and long-term financial loss to all taxpayers. They recommend: a mid-course assessment to determine progress for achieving real return on this costly investment; greater local flexibility in evaluation processes; more careful consideration of the technology infrastructure and testing costs implications; and better planning, especially concerning teachers and principals who receive poor evaluations. 

The report can be downloaded here: http://www.newpaltz.edu/crreo/brief_8_education.pdf

If you live in a state that received a RTTT grant, do you believe that the costs to implement the mandates of the competition greatly exceed the amount districts and states were awarded by the U.S. Dept of Education? If so, email Sasha Pudelski at spudelski@aasa.org

Last week the Department released a list of the 372 applications they received for their Race to the Top ‘District’ competition. Funded at $400 million in FY12, the funds will be used to award somewhere between 15 and 25 applicants at up to $40 million.

The 372 applications represent 1,189 local education agencies, including public schools, charter schools, virtual schools and education service agencies. Of the 372 applications, 265 are single district applicants, meaning that the remaining 107 applications were from consortia representing 924 districts (more than three quarters of applicants (77.7%) applied as part of a consortium). The 372 applications represent just of the 41.7% of the 892 districts/consortia had expressed initial intent to apply in August.

The details of the applications for this round of applications mirror those of the state level applications: tensions with unions and concerns about the cost of merely assembling the application, which is a separate conversation from the size of the final awards and whether the final awards will cover the true work of the application.

Looking at where the applications came from, the states submitting the five largest number of applications were Texas (35), Georgia (23), California (21), North Carolina (20) and Florida (17). The states whose applications cover the five largest number of schools were Texas (113), Kentucky (81), New York (77), Washington (76) and Missouri (66).

AASA remains committed to the belief that federal funding for K-12 education should remain committed to prioritizing federal flagship formula programs (including Title I and IDEA). The $400 million used for this round of Race to the Top ‘District’ will ultimately serve but a sliver of the nation’s public schools. Looking to FY13 and considering that the federal government is currently operating under a continuing resolution, that means that will be $400 million for yet another round of RttT. The $400 million would do much to reduce the depth of the cuts associated with the sequester. $400 million would represent more than ¼ of the anticipated 8.2% cut in Title I or slightly less than half of the same cut within IDEA.

AASA, in partnership with the Alliance for Excellent Education led for Governor Bob Wise, is pleased to announce our participation in the Digital Learning Day campaign. This national campaign is designed to celebrate innovative teaching and highlight practices that make learning more personalized and engaging for students, exploring how digital learning can provide all students with the opportunities they deserve – to build the skills needed to succeed in college, career, and life. Through this campaign we are hoping to build momentum for a wave of innovation that changes policies, shifts attitudes, and supports wide-scale adoption of these promising instructional practices.

By signing up now, participants will have access to targeted toolkits outlining ideas and ways to plan their Digital Learning Day celebration, as well as updates, informational videos, webinars, and other resources. No matter the approach, no matter the grade level, no matter the subject or geographic location, no matter a teacher’s specific comfort with using technology, this campaign will challenge education professionals and policy makers at all levels to start a conversation, make a proclamation, improve a lesson, or create a plan.

Then, on Wednesday, February 6, 2013 a national town hall meeting will be held to highlight and celebrate participants across the nation. Schools, libraries, community programs and classrooms are invited to showcase how they are using digital media to improve teaching and learning!

The campaign is a movement that will help provide a quality education for EVERY child. Change is up to YOU – we hope you will help build this wave for innovation, personalized learning, and great teaching by participating in the Digital Learning Day campaign effort.

Please sign up at http://www.digitallearningday.org to learn more about how you can be part of this ground-breaking event. You can also “like” Digital Learning Day on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/NationalDigitalLearningDay and follow the discussion on Twitter using the hashtag #DLDday.

A little light Veteran's Day reading. Here's a synopsis of what happened on election night, with a focus on education.

Election Results: No changes at the federal level. Democrats in the White House and Senate, Republicans in the House.

• President Obama wins popular and electoral vote to be re-elected to a second term as President.
• Democrats expanded their majority in the Senate, picking up one seat. The Senate will have 12 new faces and 20 female senators. 
• Republicans lost some seats in the House, but still retain their majority. There will be 76 new faces in the House when the new Congress convenes in January.
• Fun Fact: New Hampshire is the first state to have an all-female delegation!

Congressional Leadership:

• In the Senate, Senator Harkin (D-IA) is expected to maintain his chairmanship of both the authorizing committee (Senate HELP) and appropriations subcommittee (Senate LHHS appropriations subcommittee). Sen. Alexander (R-TN) is expected to take over as ranking member of the HELP committee, replacing Sen. Enzi (R-WY), as well as ranking member of the Senate LHHS appropriations subcommittee. Sen. Murray (D-WA) is expected to assume the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee (taking over for the retiring Kent Conrad, D-ND), and will be joined by Sen. Sessions (R-AL).
• On the House side, Chairman Kline (R-MN) is expected to retain his chairmanship of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, along with Rep. Miller (D-CA) retaining his ranking member status. On the appropriations side, LHHS appropriations subcommittee chair Denny Rehberg (R-MT) was defeated, and the front runner to replace him looks to be Rep. Bill Young (R-FL), followed by Jack Kingston (R-GA), Mike Simpson (R-ID) and Rodney Alexander (R-LA). Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) will return as ranking member of the subcommittee. Chairman Ryan (R-WI) will need a waiver from term limits as Committee Chair to return as chairman of the Budget Committee, and Rep. VanHollen (D-MD) will return as ranking member.

State Gubernatorial Elections: Republicans are the chief state executive (governor) in 30 states; Democrats hold the governorship in 19 states. The lone independent is in Rhode Island. Eleven seats were up for election this year (compared to the 36 up for election in 2014): DE, IN, MO, MT, NH, NC, ND, UT, VT, WA, WV and Puerto Rico.

State Legislature Elections: More than 6,000 of the nation’s 7,383 seats in 99 state legislative chambers were up for grabs this year. Partisan shifts occurred in only 11 chambers, including both the House and Senate in Arkansas (now ruby red!), the Alaska Senate (previously split down the middle, now under Republican control), and a host of pick-ups for Democrats: Colorado House, Maine’s House and Senate, Minnesota’s House and Senate, New Hampshire’s House, New York’s Senate and Oregon’s House. Republicans lead both chambers in 26 state legislatures while Democrats control both chambers in 19 states. Four states have split legislatures (IA, KY, NH, VA) and Nebraska is unicameral and non-partisan.

Chief State School Officers: Four states (NC, MT, IN and WA) elected their chief state school officer.

2012 State Elections: Candidates and Results: State-by-state list of state elections (governor, lieutenant governor, chief school officer, state board of education, etc…)

State Initiatives:

• Charters: Georgians voted to support a state constitutional amendment that would allow a state commission to approve charter schools. Washington voters considered—and narrowly supported—a ballot initiative to allow the opening of 40 charter schools over the next five years. This was the fourth time in recent memory that Washingtonians had considered charters, but this was the first time the initiative passed.
• Luna Laws: Idaho’s State Chief (Tom Luna) had supported three specific initiatives that were on the ballot on Election Day: limiting teachers’ collective bargaining rights, teacher merit pay, and a mandatory laptop/education technology initiative. All three education reforms were repealed. 
• Taxes:
• AZ voters defeated a proposal to extend an expiring one-cent sales tax increase, which would have generated approximately $625 million for K-12 districts.
• CA voters approved their proposition 30, to increase taxes on residents making more than $250,000; the vote helps avoid $4.8 billion in cuts to schools.
• MO voters defeated a proposed tax increase on tobacco to provide more money for K-12 education.
• WA voters supported an initiative that limits the state legislature’s ability to raise taxes.
• Higher Education: MD voters passed a version of the Dream Act, granting in-state college tuition to undocumented students.
• Teacher Pay/Evaluation: SD voters defeated a recent state law that would link teacher pay based on student test scores, as well as eliminating state tenure for teachers.

Related Readings/Articles: There was a deluge of post-election analysis (and spin?!). I’ve read a lot of it, and have pulled some of the more relevant/thoughtful pieces that include education.

• Unexpected Education partnerships Emerge in 2012 Elections (AEI)
• Edu-Election 2012 Wrap Up: Rick Hess looks at the split on the Republican Side, the idea that sequestration isn’t as big a deal as some might suggest, and what to expect from a 2^nd Obama administration.
• The Election Has Compromised Education Reform: Hitting the nail on the head, this author writes ‘Nov 6 left the country with an education mandate as unclear as the electoral mandate overall’ before looking at four education issues to watch: standards for teachers and students; charter schools; immigration reform; and education spending.
• The Issues: What to Expect in Obama’s Second Term: A quick, one-page synopsis of the biggest policy issues (whether an obstacle or an opportunity) President Obama will face in his second term. For education, the highlights are early education, ESEA waivers and access to higher education.
• Postelection, Kline Talks ESEA Renewal, Fiscal Cliff, and Bipartisanship
• Five Issues Facing Arne Duncan in a Second Term
• Obama Re-elected: What Four More Years Means for Education (Hechinger Report)
  

Sources: The New York Times, The Washington Post, CQ, The Hill, Roll Call, Politico, White Board Advisors, Committee for Education Funding

From our friends at the Alliance at Excellent Education:

Calling All District Leaders!
The Need for Systemic Technology Planning to Address Higher Standards

Thursday, November 15, 2012
2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. (ET)

Panelists: Ryan Imbriale, Principal, Patapsco High School (Baltimore County Public Schools) (invited); Bailey Mitchell, Chief Technology Officer, Forsyth County Schools (Georgia) (invited); Tom Ryan, President, Council of Great City Schools (invited); and Bob Wise, President, Alliance for Excellent Education.

As states have rightly moved to require that all students be college and career ready, school district leaders must now make far-reaching decisions that will affect the next decade of education in the United States. Partnering with other organizations, the Alliance for Excellent Education (the Alliance) seeks to provide education leaders in states and school districts with tools to make good decisions about technology aligned with the goals and vision for their students.

Please join the Alliance on Thursday, November 15 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (ET), for a webinar discussion on the need for states and districts to develop plans that incorporate the use of technology in school improvement efforts, specifically as they implement college- and career-ready standards for all students; use online assessments to gauge comprehension and learning; integrate new teacher evaluations; deal with shrinking budgets; and address the effects of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act waivers.

Make your plans today! State and district leaders are encouraged to view and participate in this important webinar discussion of the tools and resources district leaders will need to address technology’s role in the successful implementation of these higher standards in K–12 public schools.

Register and submit questions for the webinar at http://media.all4ed.org/registration-nov-15-2012 .

Please direct questions concerning the webinar to alliance@all4ed.org.

NOTE: If you are unable to watch the webinar live, an archived version will be available at http://www.all4ed.org/webinars approximately one or two business days after the event airs.

The American Association of School Administrators (AASA) developed the Urgent Need Mini-Grant program in 2002 to help public school districts meet the urgent health, mental health, education, and social service needs that impact poor children and their families. Every day you see the kinds of hardships faced. And, as school administrators, you know how the smallest kindness can enhance a child’s life…make them feel good about themselves and more connected to school.

This year, the AASA Urgent Need Mini-Grant will, through your membership and goodwill, provide funds to assist both children and families affected by Hurricane Sandy AND children and families in unaffected school districts who need a leg up.

In 2009, AASA awarded monetary grants to 16 school districts for dental health, school uniforms, winter clothing and coats, school supplies and more as a result of the Urgent Need Mini-Grant Program. For more information and to apply click here.

Check out today's Title 1-derland blog entry, an education roundtable take on what the election means for education. AASA contributed one of the responses! 

Hurricane Sandy has has affected millions of people on the East coast. Thousands of children have been displaced and have no place to go, their homes and neighborhoods left destroyed. Efforts to rebuild affected areas will take years as communities work to restore homes, schools, roads, libraries. AASA believes that we all must reach out to lend a helping hand to those most in need.

In light of this trageday and in an effort to support efforts to get schools back online, AASA has annoucned its online exchange. Like our efforts after Hurricane Katrina, AASA's Hurricane Sandy Relief support ailing communities through a three-pronged response to the storm and its aftermath:

• Districts helping Districts: AASA has set up an online district-to-district exchange where members can see what the affected districts need most and contribute to the district’s efforts to rebuild and reopen their schools with equipment, transportation, and resources.
• Schools helping Schools: AASA is promoting fundraising strategies for schools that want to lend financial and material assistance to affected communities. These strategies have the added benefit of engaging young people and your community in raising money and resources for those devastated by the storm.
• AASA Members helping Children and Families in Need: AASA’s decade-long giving program, Urgent Need Mini-Grants, helps districts meet the urgent health, mental health, education, and social service needs that impact poor children and their families. This year’s program will provide funds to assist children and families affected by Hurricane Sandy AND children and families in other school districts who need a leg up.

Check out http://www.aasa.org/sandyrelief.aspx for additional information, whether you have something you can donate/give or if your district needs aid.

Follow @Noellerson, @AASAHQ and @AASATotalChild for more information as it becomes available. For immediate questions, email children@aasa.org.

So, there’s a presidential election today. Beyond that, though, there are a lot of decisions that will be made today that will directly impact what happens in schools, whether at the federal, state or local level. On the ballot I cast this morning, there was a school board decision along with a bond issue for school capital improvement. There are many education related decisions being made today.

Congressional elections will impact committee make-up, state-level intiatives are numerous and potentially far-reaching, and local school board elections will shape local education leadership. In advance of the obvious post-election analysis I’ll post as this week rolls on, I wanted to start here with a catch-all of what’s going on re: education.

Starting with the elections at the federal level, there are already a handful of known vacancies, attributable to either retirement, primary losses and other natural exits. Beyond the names listed here, the membership of the various committees we follow most closely (education, appropriations and budget) are all subject to further change once the election results are finalized and committee rosters are adjusted to account for election losses and transfers to other committees. Thanks to CEF for assembling the information in one place.

Our friends at Education Gadfly have assembled what they’re calling the top seven state-level education initiatives on ballots across the country. You can read the full story here. A quick overview is bulleted here; how do you think this list stacks up?

• Tony Bennet’s re-election as state chief
• Washington state’s charter initiative would approve a charter school program for Washington State (an initiative that has been rejected three times in recent history).
• Idaho’s Propositions 1, 2 and 3: (Gadfly only covers 1 and 2, I want to include the full set of 3) Known as Students Come First or Luna’s Laws, depending on how you view them, Props 1-3 are a set of education labor-related laws. Prop 1 deals with evaluations, contracts, and hire/fire. Prop 2 deals with pay for performance, and Prop 3 is a 1:1 laptop initiative for high schools.
• Michigan’s Proposal 2 would embed (protect) the right to collectively bargain in the state constitution, for both private and public sector employees.
• Georgians are considering a charter-school resolution that would extend charter-granting authority to a state commission (current law requires school board approval).
• The Wisconsin Senate is up for grabs. You may recall some of their public-sector collective bargaining debates in recent years. Will Republicans maintain their majority?
• The Indiana House: will Republicans maintain their supermajority

AASA wishes all those affected by the devastation of Hurricane Sandy a full and speedy recovery. As we did after Hurricane Katrina, AASA seeks to link school leaders across the country to those school districts and children most affected by the storm. In these instances, AASA members have always shown solidarity for public schools and the children they serve. AASA is organizing an online exchange to match what superintendents are able to give with those most in need. Watch for details about the exchange coming soon. We thank you, in advance, for your cooperation during this difficult time, and we hope that our efforts will assist those working to pull their schools and communities back together. 

Direct all questions to our Children’s Programs Department (children@aasa.org).

AASA is a proud supporter of the Speak Up survey. This year's survey represents the 10th time the national survey has asked students how they use--and how they would like to use--technology for learning.

In the 2012 survey, students will be asked about their use of mobile tools, social networks and gaming as part of their learning in and out of the classroom. Teachers and administrators will be asked what tools they use and what they want to use and how prepared they are for technology use, and parents will be asked how they feel about the role of technology in their children’s lives and learning.

Ther national online survey is open for one more month (through Dec. 14) and will be completed by more than 400,000 K-12 students, educators and parents. To date, more than 2.6 million K-12 students, educators and parents from more than 30,000 schools in all 50 states have participated in Speak Up.

Take the survey today!

This webinar, Effective School Improvement: Integrating Real-Life Stories and Policy, was rescheduled due to Hurricane Sandy.

What does effective school improvement look like? Hear from District Superintendent Bart Goering of Kansas and retired school social worker and elementary school reform team leader Brenda Rinkes of Ohio tell their stories of school improvement. Gary Ratner, chair of FEA’s school improvement committee, will then explore how their strategies align with FEA’s policy and practice recommendations for turning around low-achieving schools.

Questions we will address include:

• What does it take to lead and sustain a turnaround in “real life”?
• What improvement practices work in leadership, instruction, school climate and parent and community involvement?
• How long does it take to implement major, integrated improvements?
• What federal policies are needed to support schools’ implementation of successful practices?

Who: Bart Goering, Superintendent, Spring Hill School District, KS; Brenda Rinkes, retired school social worker and reform team leader, Bellaire Elementary School, Bellaire, OH; Gary M. Ratner, Executive Director, Citizens for Effective Schools; Chair, FEA Committee on School Improvement/Capacity-building; and moderator Mary Kingston, Manager of Government Relations, National Association of Secondary School Principals

When: November 19, 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. Eastern time

Please Register at: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/311765512. This registration also explains what you will need to do on November 19^th to participate in the webinar. Please sign up no later than November 16^th.

Featured Presenters:

• Dr. Barton Goering is superintendent of the Spring Hill School District, which encompasses 3,000 students and 350 employees. He earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in education from the University of Kansas, and a Ph.D. from Kansas State. He has served as a superintendent, building administrator and special education consultant. His educational goal is to ensure all students are successful.
• Brenda Rinkes graduated with Bachelors (Ohio University ‘74) and Masters Degrees (Ohio State University ’81) in Social Work. She is a Licensed Independent Social Worker and Supervisor in the State of Ohio and a Licensed School Social Worker with the Ohio Department of Education. Brenda has worked 34 years as a School Social Worker, the last 31 years in the Bellaire Local School District. Brenda served as the Positive Behavior Support (PBS) Team Leader at Bellaire Elementary during the period of time the school improved from Academic Emergency to Academic Excellence. Brenda is currently employed as an instructor and field coordinator for the Social Work Program at West Liberty University West Liberty, West Virginia and as a consultant with the Bellaire Local School District and the Belmont County Department of Jobs and Family Services.
• Gary M. Ratner, Esq. is the Executive Director and Founder of Citizens for Effective Schools, a national citizens’ school reform advocacy organization committed to attaining the goal of academic proficiency for virtually all public school students, regardless of income, race or ethnicity. He is the author of the seminal article on holding urban public schools legally accountable for effectively educating their students, or, at a minimum, adopting the characteristics of effective schools, ”A New Legal Duty for Urban Public Schools: Effective Education in Basic Skills,” published in the Texas Law Review in 1985. Since then, Gary has written extensively on the legal and policy changes needed to dramatically improve such schools based on what works. He has a blog on education in Huffington Post. Gary is the principal author of many of FEA’s major advocacy documents, especially related to school improvement and accountability. He is the lead author of “Common Elements of Successful School Turnarounds: Research and Experience,” which will be discussed in this webinar. Gary graduated from Williams College and Harvard Law School. See www.citizenseffectiveschools.org.

In follow up to an earlier letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack urging flexibility on school lunch requirements, House Education and the Workforce Committee Republicans issued a press release announcing their request of a study on new school lunch requirements.

AASA was happy to coordinate a site visit to a local WV public school, highlighting an excellent school nutrition program while featuring the strain and pressures the school faces in implementing a successful program under such inflexible, controversial requirements.

The request was submitted to the Government Accountability Office, the  audit/evaluation/investigative arm of Congress. The report request focuses on four areas:

• What challenges have school food service authorities faced in implementing the new school nutrition requirements? In particular, have local authorities had difficulty identifying and purchasing foods that are palatable to students and meet the new standards? Has student participation in school meal programs decreased because of the new school nutrition requirements? Have the school nutrition standards resulted in increased food waste?
• How have the changes in nutritional standards affected the costs of providing school lunches at the state and local levels? Please examine the potential increase in programmatic, administrative (time, budget and staffing) and compliance costs.
• How has the mandatory price increase in paid meals affected the school lunch program?
• What steps has USDA taken to assist school food authorities in implementing the new requirements, and what additional assistance is needed?

Read the letter request.

In addition to AASA's sequestration toolkit and economic impact/sequestration reports, here is a compilation of other sequestration-related resources you may find helpful. AASA jas actually made all of these resources available at one time or another, but a special thanks to our friends at CEF for sharing them all in one list.

• CEF Grassroots Toolkit
• ASCD: Stop Sequestration Now
• National Association of Federally Impacted Schools: Impact Aid and Sequestration: The Impact of the Budget Control Act on Federally Impacted Schools
• National Education Association analysis: Impact of Sequestration on Federal Education Programs
• National School Boards Association: Stop Sequestration
• Senate Labor-HHS-ED Appropriations Subcommittee report: Under Threat - Sequestration’s Impact on Nondefense Jobs and Services 

I was going to post this yesterday, when it was 100 days until Digital Learning Day, but Hurricane Sandy had other plans! Here it is, with just under 100 days to go until Digital Learning Day.

Believe it or not, there are less than 100 days until Digital Learning Day 2013! We know that February sounds very far away, yet it’s time to start making plans for you and your students to participate in this nationwide celebration of great teaching and learning.

Three EASY WAYS to Spread the Word and Celebrate the Potential of Technology in Schools:

• Add the Digital Learning Day button and/or start a countdown to Digital Learning Day on your website. You can find the button under Spread the Word on our website.
• Tell at least 10 colleagues about Digital Learning Day and encourage them to sign-up to learn more. 
• Create a lesson, afterschool challenge, or contest for your students. Quick Idea: Create a project-based scenario that encourages your students to use technology to create a poster, PPT, video or advertisement highlighting the benefits of technology and digital learning in schools. Make sure to share the best ones with us!

Visit the Digital Learning Day website to find out more about how to incorporate technology in your lessons on the Learn & Explore page and more ways to participate in Digital Learning Day.

You can also “like” Digital Learning Day on Facebook and follow Digital Learning Day on Twitter for the latest updates on digital learning and Digital Learning Day.

More information on AASA's involvement with DLD is available in an earlier blog post.

Today's guest post comes from Jennifer Casap Vollmann, Executive Director of New Global Citizens. 

To succeed in American society today requires a range of knowledge, skills and dispositions that are vastly different than ever before in our history. The move toward implementation of the Common Core State Standards (Common Core) in more than 40 states is driving significant shifts in education policy and practice. The pervasive influence of the Common Core offers tremendous opportunities for educators to foster learning that will prepare all students for college, careers and citizenship.

In our rapidly changing worldwide information economy, global awareness is an essential competency—and education is a key means to fostering global competence. Students who learn to think in ways that transcend borders and cultures are able to be successful in future careers and take action that effects change for the common good.

Recognition of the importance of global awareness is evident in the fact that globally-focused knowledge, skills and dispositions are threaded throughout the Common Core content standards as well as the foundational capacities and practices—often referred to as “habits of mind.” For example, in the language of the Common Core, students who are ready for college and career:

• understand other perspectives and cultures;
• make sense of problems and persevere in solving them;
• respond to varying demands of audience, task, purpose and discipline;
• demonstrate independence;
• attend to precision; and
• comprehend as well as critique.

As we progress toward implementation of the Common Core, it is important to be cognizant of an important reality: Because academic standards focus on student outcomes, they are not designed to address how learners develop essential competencies such as global awareness. Rather, it is through in-school and expanded learning programs that students acquire these abilities.

Learning opportunities that enable students to grapple with real-world issues through inquiry and exploration—and offer vehicles for students to apply what they know in meaningful ways, provide a critical link between the learning process and mastery of knowledge and skills.

One program that is making powerful strides in fostering habits of mind as well as core academic content is New Global Citizens. The program provides blended learning opportunities for students and educators as an afterschool club or through school courses such as social studies, English, science and leadership.

By learning how to fundraise, advocate for solutions, and educate their communities, students build skills in collaboration, public speaking, leadership, civic engagement, peer relations, project management, cross-cultural communication and related key areas that prepare them for successful and productive lives.

Working in teams, middle and high school students identify and focus on a global project to address a significant issue facing communities around the globe. Issue areas include extreme poverty, universal primary education, gender equality, child mortality, maternal health, HIV/AIDS and other diseases, environmental sustainability, sustainable local economies, natural disasters and armed conflict.

The outcomes from New Global Citizens are indicative of the power of innovative learning opportunities. In the last five years, more than 10,500 students have formed over 430 school-based teams in 14 states across the U.S. Together, the teams raised $150,000, educated 450,000 community members and launched 280 advocacy initiatives to support 70 projects in 40 countries. Ninety percent of participants of shown an increase in global awareness and leadership skills. More than 85 percent of alumni continue to stay engaged in leadership and service activities.

This kind of transformative change occurs when students have tangible ways to get involved with and take action on issues of importance to them. In so doing, students are developing critical habits of mind such as those articulated in the Common Core.

With the march toward implementation of the Common Core, we must seek out and implement programs that foster students’ inherent dispositions to become critical thinkers, problem solvers, effective communicators and efficient collaborators. In so doing, we will nurture generations of socially and culturally competent leaders equipped with initiative, self-direction and responsibility.

In collaboration with the Hope Foundation and NEA, AASA is hosting How Schools Work: National Forum on School Improvement.

The meeting, to be held in Alexandria VA in December, is part of the How Schools Work series, which looks beyond what to do to assure student success and directly into how it is being done in schools throughout North America. Every school has excellent teaching going on, and every district has successful schools. The challenge has been in scaling that success. HOPE's past decade has been spent developing and field-testing a method for scaling successes already underway in schools. This meeting is your chance to see it in action!

Full details are available in the PDF linked above.

• Date: December 10-11, 2012
• Location: Hilton Alexandria Mark Center
  5000 Seminary Road
  Alexandria VA 22311
  703-845-2613
• Register: Phone: 812-355-6000 / Email: areeves@hopefoundation.org
• Featured Speakers: Pedro Noguera (Professor of Education at NYU and Educational Commenter on CNN and NPR) and Alan Blankstein (Author, Failure is NOT an Option and The Answer is in the Room.).

AASA was pleased to be an original support of the first annual Digital Learning Day (DLD) in 2012. The huge success of last year's event highlights how critical education technology is and the huge opportunity digital learning represents for our schools and the students they serve. 

Digital Learning Day 2012 garnered support from nearly 2 million students and 20,000 teachers; more than 40,000 people who watched the Town Hall meeting online; more than 4,000 tweets; 25 national organizations; 39 states who hosted their own Digital Learning Day celebrations and 18 states whose Governor officially proclaimed February 1, 2012 as Digital Learning Day.

Join us for Digital Learning Day 2013!

From a school system point of view, nearly 500 of the DLD registrants were district-level administrators. Looking to build on that support, and as a Core Partner, we encourage you to engage your district!

There are a variety of ways to engage, whether at the classroom, school, district or state level. Check out all the options here, and give special attention to the section for district leaders.

Once you register your district, spead the word!

AASA is proud to support the National Runaway Switchboard's annual National Runaway Prevention month this month.  

Check out these infographics on who else is participating in NRPM and what you can do!

History and Growth:

• In 2002, NRS and NN4Y collaborated to launch the first ever National Runaway Prevention Month (NRPM) campaign; a Congressional Resolution designating NRPM passed that year. 
• In 2005, NN4Y members overwhelmingly responded to a NRPM survey created by NRS used to bolster future NRPM campaigns. 
• Prior to 2002, NRS celebrated National Runaway Prevention Week, which expanded to National Runaway Prevention Month. 
• NRPM started with 5 national partners and a local task force of 7 participants to its current 14 NRPM partners and 81 task force members representing organizations in 24 states across the country. 
• In 2007, NRS adopted the Green Light Project initiative at the request of Community Contest Winner, Huckleberry House, to raise national awareness and garner media attention by participants lighting porch lights green throughout the month of November.
• In 2009, NRS expanded the Green Light Project by exploring opportunities to get a monumental landmark/building lit green in honor of NRPM; resulting in the Hudson River Housing in Pougkeepsie, New York securing the lighting of the mid-Hudson River Bridge green three days in November.
• In 2010, NRS partnered with the New York City Department of Youth & Community Development and the Empire State Building Lighting Partners, to secure the lighting of the Empire State Building. The lighting ceremony included civil rights activist and artist, Cyndi Lauper, co-founder of True Colors Fund (an organization dedicated to LGBTQ equality). 
• In 2011, NRS hosted an NRPM kickoff luncheon and webinar presenting key findings of the Runaway Youth Longitudinal Study, which showed the effects of running away. The presentation and following panel discussion streamed live via uStream and participants far across the country posed questions and comments.
• 2012 NRS will be presenting the 11^th annual campaign, Numbers Tell the Story.

We have the registration information for the October 30 webinar on school improvement, as mentioned on the blog last week.  

You'll recall that it features AASA member Bart Goering, superintendent of Spring Hill Schools in Kansas.

• What does effective school improvement look like? Hear from Superintendent Bart Goering of Spring Hill School District, KS and retired school social worker and elementary school reform team leader Brenda Brinkes of Bellaire, OH tell their stories of school improvement. Gary Ratner, chair of FEA’s Committee on School Improvement and Capacity-building, will then explore how their strategies align with the Forum on Educational Accountability’s Policy Recommendations for school improvement.
•     Who: Bart Goering, Superintendent, Spring Hill School District, KS; Brenda Brinkes, retired school social worker and reform team leader, Bellaire Elementary School, Bellaire, OH; Gary M. Ratner, Executive Director, Citizens for Effective Schools; Chair, FEA Committee on School Improvement/Capacity-building; and moderator Mary Kingston, Manager of Government Relations, National Association of Secondary School Principals
• When: October 30, 4:00 - 5:00pm Eastern time
• To Register: Go to https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/812525481. This registration also explains what you will need to do on October 30^th to participate in the webinar. Please sign up no later than October 26^th.

As noted in an earlier post, AASA is happy to share an opportunity for your district to receive feedback on your district's crisis plan. The opportunity to participate ends next week!

It's part of the research for a dissertation entitled The Impact of Demographics, Training and Resources on the Quality of School Crisis Plans.

It's a two-step process, a questionnaire and then the plan evaluation.

Access the questionnaire here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Schoolcrisisplanning

The school crisis plan will be evaluated using a recently developed checklist that helps to determine if essential components are included in plans. You can send the plan to the primary investigator’s email, which is provided below. If sending electronically, please ensure that your school’s name is on the plan or in the email so that plans can be matched with the appropriate questionnaires. If you would like to send a hard copy of your plan instead, please indicate this on an item towards the end of the questionnaire and a self-addressed, stamped envelope will be mailed to you.

Primary investigator:
Erin Gurdineer, M.S.
Doctoral Student
Division of School Psychology
University at Albany
State University of New York
Albany, NY 12222
egurdineer@albany.edu
(845) 649-4542

In the world of all things that make me scratch my head or check the calendar to see if it is April Fools Day, this one pretty much takes the cake.

In a press release issued yesterday, Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) responded to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service that found '...83 overlapping welfare programs that represented the single largest budget item in 2011.' Of most concern? 17 of those 'welfare' programs are education programs, representing federal funding for K-12 and higher education programs. Programs on this unfortunate roster include Title I, after school programs, reading, math/science/ teacher quality grants, school breakfast/lunch, migrant, and rural education, along with a handful of post-secondary programs, including federal aid to students and colleges.

It is important to draw a clear line between a discussion about how to invest federal education funding and a move to label it welfare spending. In fact, the sentiment of seeing education funding as anything but an investment is at odds with the Senator's own words. Part of the release reads "...No longer should we measure compassion by how much money the government spends but by how many people we help to rise out of poverty…the goal must be to help more of our fellow citizens attain gainful employment and financial independence. This is about more than rescuing our finances. It’s about creating a more optimistic future for millions of struggling Americans.”

This seems to beg for investment in education, as educational attainment is arguably one of the best ways to ensure our fellow citizens attain employment and financial independence. Beyond the benefit to the individual (higher earning and lower unemployment rates), society benefits as well, through increased tax revenues and decreased demand for true welfare programs.

The U.S Department of Labor has documented how education pays, with higher levels of educational attainment linked to both higher earnings and lower unemployment rates. Further, research demonstrates that an increase in student educational attainment is associated with substantial value for taxpayers over time. Even if tax payers do not have children in public schools, taxpayers benefit from programs and policies that increase educational attainment. In 2009, RAND* documented that more education is associated with at least 7 to 10 percent higher earnings per additional year of schooling and that these higher earnings translated into higher tax payments and higher payments to social support and insurance programs. Because increased educational attainment is linked with higher employment and wages for the individual, it is also linked with a decrease in the likelihood that the individual will draw from social support programs (such as TANF, unemployment insurance, housing subsidies, food stamps and Medicaid). Understanding there might be a concern that the societal benefits of educational attainment might be overstated, the researchers at RAND repeated their analysis, reducing the estimated effect by 25 percent. Even with that significant reduction, both the individual and society at large continued to benefit.

In short, education spending is an investment, and its ability to bolster the economic health and well-being of both the individual and society make it the exact opposite of a welfare program. As Congress and our country grapple with the nation's debt/deficit and the looming threat of sequestration, education remains one of the best bets for providing economic stability and growth. The federal education programs caught in this broad umbrella definition of 'welfare' have been crucial in supporting school districts' work to improve student achievement, close achievement gaps, increase high school graduation rates, and prepare students for an increasingly competitive global workplace. Investing in our nation’s education system and the students it serves makes good policy sense, arguably now more than ever. 

Yesterday, the House Education and the Workforce Committee Republicans issued a press release detailing a letter they sent to the US Department of Agriculture, urging USDA to reexamine the new meal pattern and nutrition requirements for the National School Lunch/Breakfast programs.

In the letter, written by Reps. Noem (SD) and Roe (TN), the Committee Republicans focused on three concerns:

• The new meal pattern (including caloric limits) means students find themselves hungry just a few hours after lunch.
• Schools struggle with increased waste as students are forced to take a certain amount of food, whether they plan to eat it or not.
• State and school officials say higher expenses, including compliance costs, will jeopardize their ability to provide affordable meals for students.

These issues bear strong resemblance to the concerns AASA articulated as the program was being reauthorized in 2010. This fall, as schools started the new school year, the new lunch program generated a lot of talk, and a very significant share of concern and frustration. Beyond the points included in the House letter, we at AASA have heard:

• More students are taking advantage of the non-reimbursable meal items (including competitive foods). This is a fine option that schools are happy to provide, but it has implications:
• These items are a la carte, or at price. The very students targeted in this program--F/R price eligible--are less likely to be able to afford the additional items necessary to curb appetites. Students are going hungry and, as reported by one superintendent, it highlights/makes obvious who the F/R price eligible are.
• Some districts are reporting decreased program participation as students opt to bring their own lunch.
• Plate Waste.

As part of our continued advocacy around school nutrition and our efforts to ensure that school lunch regulations are implemented in ways that support school efforts to provide school, AASA has coordinated a site-visit with House Committee staff, featuring a public school system in West Virginia. The site visit will focus on this district's success with its school lunch program, and provide hill staff with an opportunity to see the school and its program first hand.

As posted in an earlier entry, AASA's Executive Director Dan Domenech was recently nominated for a seat on the USAC Board. (The USAC Board oversees E-Rate). There are multiple nominations for the seat, and we are hopeful and optimistic that Dan, representing AASA and school system leaders across the country, will be the selected nominee.

Dan's nomination has received 35 letters of support, representing national, state and local organizations and education agencies. 

Here's the list:

• Dan's letter of nomination came from EdLiNC, a coalition of national organizations including: AASA, AFT, AESA, American Library Association, Consortium for School Networking, Education Legislative Services, INternational Society for Technology in Education, NASSP, NAESP, National Association of Independent Schools, National Association of State Boards of Education, National Catholic Educational Assocaition, NEA, PTA, NSBA and US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
• Letters of Support:
• National Organizations: National Rural Education Association, National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, Organizations Concerned with Rural Education, and Rural School and Community Trust
• State Associations: AASA Region 2; AZ; AR; GA; IL; IA; KS; MO; NY; NC; OK; PA; USA KS; VT; VA; and WA.
• Local Education Agencies: Abingdon Schools (PA), Bergen County Schools (NJ), Blackstone Schools (MA), East Helena Schools (MT), Fairfax County Schools (VA), Fort Smith Schools (AR), Hampton Schools (AR), Harrisonburg Schools (VA), Kingsport Schools (TN), McMinnville Schools (OR), Mecosta Schools (MI), Mercer County Schools (WV), Ontario/Niagara BOCES (NY), Plevna Schools (MT), Ponca Schools (OK), Santa Ana Schools (CA), Storey County (NV), and Talbot County (MD).

 Thank you to everyone who submitted a letter!

Our friends at CEF provided a really quick verview of the House Appropriations Committee Democrats latest report, A Report on Consequences of Sequestration. Here is the excerpt on education:

Education

• Roughly 100,000 fewer children nationwide would be enrolled in Head Start – thereby losing comprehensive early childhood services. More than 20,000 Head Start employees could lose their jobs.
• Title I Grants to School Districts would see a cut in excess of $1 billion, denying funding to well over 4,000 schools serving nearly 2 million disadvantaged students. These funds pay for teachers, tutors, and after-school programs. Sequestration would mean job losses for more than 16,000 teachers and aides.
• The Department of Labor, Job Corps would need to reduce the number of at-risk youth served by approximately 4,300. A cut of this magnitude would also endanger the opening of any new center and could force the closing of centers. Job Corps provides a residential environment at 124 centers nationwide for at-risk youth to gain the education and skills they need to find and keep jobs, serve in the military or enroll in post-secondary education. Every dollar that a Job Corps center spends in its local area results in $1.91 in economic activity.
• Impact Aid payments would be reduced to about 1,200 districts which serve approximately 950,000 Federally Impacted children. This will lead to more teacher layoffs and other reductions in services.
• Special Education Grants to States/IDEA would face significant reductions under sequestration. States and school districts could be forced to lay off approximately 12,000 special education teachers and aides, as well as other staff serving kids with disabilities. More than 500,000 students with special needs stand to be impacted by this reduction in services.

AASA was pleased to help NPR with its latest installation of Fiscal Cliff Notes, a series looking at how the looming fiscal crisis will impact the economy.

In its latest installment, Cliff Notes looks at the effect of the sequester on schools receiving Impact Aid funding. (You'll recall that all but one federal K-12 education funding program will be cut in July, not January; the one program facing mid-year cuts is Impact Aid.)

You can listen to the feature here. 

Our friends at FEA are happy to announce an upcoming webinar, Effective School Improvement: Integrating Real-Life Stories and Policy.

What does effective school improvement look like? Hear from Superintendent Bart Goering of Spring Hill School District, KS and retired school social worker and elementary school reform team leader Brenda Brinkes of Bellaire, OH tell their stories of school improvement. Gary Ratner, chair of FEA’s Committee on School Improvement and Capacity-building, will then explore how their strategies align with the Forum on Educational Accountability’s Policy Recommendations for school improvement.

Who:

• Bart Goering, Superintendent, Spring Hill School District, KS
• Brenda Brinkes, retired school social worker and reform team leader, Bellaire Elementary School, Bellaire, OH
• Gary M. Ratner, Executive Director, Citizens for Effective Schools; Chair, FEA Committee on School Improvement/Capacity-building
• Moderator: Mary Kingston, Manager of Government Relations, NASSP

When: October 30, 4:00 - 5:00pm Eastern time 

Check back for registration details.

Please join the Alliance for Excellent Education for a webinar to learn more about how rural schools are overcoming the challenges of funding and support to provide students with the best education the twenty-first century has to offer.

Thursday, Oct.25 from 2-3 pm ET

Register here.

Rural youth continue to be less likely than their urban counterparts to reach their educational goals, and evidence indicates that they continue to be disadvantaged in terms of school resources to prepare them for college and a career. Some of the most promising efforts around improving rural education are taking place in schools where digital media and technology resources are being effectively utilized to connect students to the world outside their community and building their skills to make them better citizens within it.

Terri Schwartzbeck of the Alliance will moderate a conversation with two educators from rural Albemarle County, Virginia and Dr. Scott McLeod, who is currently serving as Director of Innovation in Ames, Iowa while on leave from his position as an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and the Founding Director of the UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education (CASTLE). Superintendent Pam Moran will discuss some of her districtwide strategies for using digital tools and technology to improve student access to enriching educational experiences. Alison Dwier-Selden, principal of Walton Middle School will share her experiences working to provide better access to broadband for not just her school but her entire community. Chip Slaven of the Alliance will discuss efforts under way in rural McDowell County, West Virginia. Panelists will also address questions submitted by viewers from across the country.

Panelists

• Alison Dwier-Selden, Principal, Walton Middle School (Charlottesville, Virginia)
• Scott McLeod, PhD, Director of Innovation, Prairie Lakes AEA 8 (Ames, Iowa)
• Pamela Moran, EdD, Superintendent, Albemarle County Public Schools (Charlottesville, Virginia)
• Terri Schwartzbeck, Senior Policy Associate, Alliance for Excellent Education
• Chip Slaven, Senior Advocacy Associate, Alliance for Excellent Education

AASA's Executive Director, Dan Domenech, has been nominated for the USAC Board (the body within the FCC that oversees the E-Rate Program).

He has been nominated for the seat that represents schools and libraries, a seat currently held by the retiring executive director of NSBA, Anne Bryant.

Dan's letter of nomination was submitted by EdLiNC, a group of 16 school and library groups that advocate for E-Rate and seek to expand the use of educational technologies in schools and libraries. 

Additional letters of support have been filed, as well, including one by AASA and a joint letter from the National Rural Education Association, National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, the Association of Education Service Agencies, and Organizations Concerned with Rural Education.

CALL TO ACTION: Individual school districts are submitting letters of support, as well, and we encourage you to do the same!

While we are confident in Dan being the final choice for the vacant spot, there is a competing nomination. Please take a few moments--whether as an AASA member, superintendent, E-Rate supporter, or education stakeholder--to submit a letter of your own. This could be a numbers thing when it comes down to it, and we'd welcome support from the field.

What to do?

• Refer to the letter of nomination and letters of support.
• In drafting your own letter, please copy verbatim the address block and subject line, including the docket number (96-45 and 97-21). 
• Feel free to borrow liberally from the letters provided, starting with that text and personalizing with appropriate letter head and changing organization names as necessary.

When it comes to filing:

• You can either file it as instructed in the FCC notice or email it to me (Noelle) and I can file it for you. (My email address is nellerson AT aasa.org).

I know this is quick turn around, but we would appreciate any letters of support by COB this Friday.

FREE WEBINAR- Closing the Gap: Resources Supporting Effective Use of Data.

AASA is happy to make this webinar opportunity available to members. On Thursday, Nov. 8, join us (along with our friends at the Consortium for School Networking) to learn about brand new tools and resources that are being made available to the K-12 education community, including:· School District Case studies that examine the lessons learned from Student Information Systems (SIS) and Learning Management Systems (LMS) implementation and selection processes · SIS/LMS selection and implementation templates that will help you develop a data-rich culture and use data more effectively· A suite of professional development resources currently in the works.

DATE: Thursday, Nov. 8

TIME: 2-3 pm EST

Register today to reserve your space! http://www.cosn.org/ClosingtheGap/WebinarRegistration/tabid/9757/Default.aspx 

A round up of a bunch of random items I’ve been meaning to share:

Administration and Sequestration

• In a follow up to last month’s (essentially) useless sequestration transparency report (see AASA blog analysis), the administration issued guidance to all federal agencies detailing how funds for the FY13 continuing resolution will be distributed. The memo outlines a process where agencies are to basically ignore the sequester as they plan their budgets. Basically, each agency can determine its CR level by taking the annualized CR level (ignoring the across-the-board increase expected, since the FY13 CR is above FY12 levels) and applying a six-month pro-rated weight.
• Check out the New America Foundation’s Ed Money Watch Blog. Last month, in Sequestration Will Mean Significant Cuts for Needy School Districts, they examined census data to determine—for each school district in the nation—total annual revenue and federal revenue for the 09-10 school year. Armed with that, they were able to calculate the percent of each district’s revenue that comes from federal funding. A greater share of federal dollars means the pending cuts of sequestration would eat a larger share of the district’s budget. The data also calculates how much each district stands to lose under a 8.2 percent sequester cut. Access the data set.

Reports

• The Senate HELP Committee finally (nearly a year later!) released its report on S 3578, the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 2011.
• The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released Congress Has Cut Discretionary Funding by $1.5 Trillion Over Ten Years. The analysis examines—starting in 2010—different factors (FY11, FY12 and Budget Control Act) and their impact on discretionary spending. It includes a graphic detailing how discretionary funding is expected to fall to historically low levels. 
• The Roosevelt Institute released a report looking at the (downward)trends of education funding: State and Local Education Funding Declines (Again) in 2011.

Last week, Assistant Secretary Deb Delisle hosted a group of education organizations for a discussion of what is going on in education at the state and local level, a conversation about the problems in education, the big issues/opportunities/obstacles, and what role the department of education may play in creating/addressing them.

Invitations were extended to the executive director and advocacy director of each organization, and those in attendance included AASA, the National School Boards Association, the Elementary and Secondary Principals groups, the National Association of State Boards of Education and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Topics covered in the session included:

• Implementation of common core and common core assessments (SBAC/PARCC)
• Standards/accountability
• Funding and
• Impending cuts of sequestration (among others).

The Department used the meeting as an opportunity to tout its ESEA waivers, as well, sharing its ESEA Flexibility Milestones. It's a nice little chart detailing who has applied for (and received) what. That said, the wiavers--er, flexibility--are but a temporary patch on what needs to be a complete reauthorization. As much as Congress has a lead role to play in moving reauthorization bills, its widely recognized that these waivers remove pressure to reauthorize as some states are granted relief. The relief is being felt in those states. But what is being done for those states (or districts in those states) that do not pursue or are denied a waiver? Where is their relief?

There weren’t any actionable items coming out of the meeting, either in terms of steps the national groups would take to support efforts or in terms of what USED could do to shape/redirect the conversations. From an AASA point of view, given the impending funding cliff, giving the administration the benefit of a doubt in terms of re-election, a conversation around prioritizing Title I and IDEA in the President’s FY14 budget proposal would have been an strong step in supporting the efforts of state and local education agencies.

Noticeably absent from the meeting? Both AFT and NEA. I am under the impression there was a conversation with the unions, but for an administration that has so strongly pushed and supported its ‘Labor-Management Collaboration’ efforts, it seemed disjointed to not have all the groups at the table at the same time.

Earlier this year, a National Evaluation of Title III was completed that focused on state and local implementation. Most of the findings proved to be fairly straightforward; the number of ELL students is growing, ESL is the most common type of service for educating ELLs, districts have significant discretion in identifying and exiting EL students from the Title III program, and the vast majority of states use a home language survey to identify kids who could be eligible for EL.

However, there were 6 findings I came across that were of note and warrant further examination and consideration within an ESEA re-authorization:
1. Only 10 states met their state-level AMAOs for the 2008-2009 school yaer, but at the district level 55% of Title III districts nationwide reported meeting their AMAOs. However, all together, these districts served less than half of the nation’s EL population (39%). Thus, the majority of ELs are enrolled in districts that did not meet all three of their AMAOs in 2008-2009.
2. 11% of districts reported missing their AMAOSs for four consecutive years. Districts serving smaller numbers of ELs were much more likely to miss AMAOs for two or four consecutive years than districts that served more than 1,000 ELs.
3. Although Title III funds are disbursed by formula, the 2009 per-pupil funding levels ranged from $457 in PA to $86 in Alaska. While the per-pupil formula was less than $120 in seven states, it exceeded $300 in four states. This is attributed to the fact that Title III funding to states is determined based on data from the American Community Survey, which provides estimates on the number of ELs based on a sample, rather than state reports of EL and student enrollment.
4. In 2009-2010, funding for ELs was a challenge reported by Title III districts. 71% of district administrators said one of the most prominent challenges was “insufficient funds for EL services.”
5. 75% of all Title III districts reported that all teachers serving ELs were fully certified in their positions. However, “full certification” is not equivalent to “adequate expertise” from the perspective of district administrators: among those surveyed, 73% reported a “lack of expertise among mainstream teachers to address the need of ELs” as a moderate or major challenge.
6. 87% of Title III districts reported implementing at least one strategy to recruit/retain highly qualified teachers of ELs. The most frequently reported strategy was the provision of financial incentives to pursue advanced course work of current teachers.

Does this jive with what you are experiencing in your state and district? Would you like AASA to push for more equitable funding formulas for EL students? Read the complete report here: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/state-local-implementation-report.pdf 

The AASA sequestration toolkit was updated on December 4, 2012 to include district-specific data and resources.

All sequestration and fiscal-cliff related resources can be found here. <Link will go 'live' at 10 am Dec. 4, 2012>

Lsat month, AASA debuted its Courageous Leadership Conversations, featuring Dr. Hite. Today, we are pleased to release the second dialogue in the series, featuring Dr. Anres Alonso, from Baltimore City Public Schools. The conversation focuses on strategies Baltimore’s school leaders employ to increase college-access and success for all students and to build a college-going culture in the schools and in the community.

Check out the video!

Our friends at the National Opportunity to Learn Campaign released 5 Things You Should Know About the "Parent Trigger" Film.

National Opportunity to Learn shared the press release in response to the film Won't Back Down. You can read the original statement here, though the text is posted below:

"...The new film, which chronicles the fictional parent takeover of an underperforming school in Pittsburgh, is the latest creation of Walden Media, the same production firm responsible for Waiting for Superman.

Like Waiting for Superman, Won't Back Down's true corporate message hides behind a cascade of swelling music, ham-fisted dialogue, and cartoonish villains. The new film purports that by empowering parents through a "Parent Trigger" law to take over their schools, fire staff and turn public schools into privately managed charter schools, all the woes of our nation's education system can be solved, all children will succeed, and the world will be a better place and a beacon of free-market magic.

We don't agree with one iota of this "privatization equals a utopian education system" business. So here are 5 things you should know about the film, Parent Trigger laws, and the folks who promote them.

Earlier today the National Center for Education Statistics announced an update to the CTE Statistics website.

The CTE Statistics website includes tables describing CTE at three levels: (1) secondary/high school CTE, (2) postsecondary/college career education, and (3) adult education for work. These tables are updated periodically to incorporate new CTE-related topics and data from new surveys. In this update, two tables were added to the secondary/high school tables, with one table updating information on CTE high schools as of school year 2007-08, and one new table summarizing CTE teachers’ perceptions of and satisfaction with their jobs. Six tables were added to the postsecondary/college tables, replacing tables on student persistence and attainment as of 2001 with updated tables on persistence, attainment, and labor market outcomes as of 2009.

To view the CTE site, please visit:
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/ 

AASA always welcomes the opportunity to highlight the success of the nation's public schools. This blog post is no exception.

Dr. Tom Trigg (Superintendent of Blue Valley Schools in Kansas) is an active AASA member. His district recently produced a video to celebrate public schools. Set to the beat of a recent Jay-Z/Alicia Keys tune, the video features two young students singing/rapping about what is right about public schools, trends in policy, and the most important message of all: "Education is where dreams are made, there's nothing you can't do".

Public School State of Mind

Check out the video here, and feel free to send me similar good news stories from your district!

The National Conference of State Legislatures recently released a document looking at what it tales to prepare a pipeline of effective principals. Divided in to three sections, Preparing a Pipeline of Effective Principals: A Legislative Approach starts with an examination of background information and the state legislative role, moves on to feature six policy areas states are currently using to improve principal prep, and closes with specific suggestions for actions state legislatures can take to improve principal prep.

Beyond the AASA Sequestration Toolkit and our earlier webinar, AASA is pleased to share the latest sequestration webinar, featuring AASA member Tom Shelton, superintendent of Fayette County Schools in Lexington, Kentucky. 

Panelists
Phillip Lovell, Vice President of Federal Advocacy, Alliance for Excellent Education
Joel Packer, Executive Director, Committee for Education Funding
Tom Shelton, PhD, Superintendent, Fayette County Kentucky Public Schools (Lexington, KY)

As school districts across the country continue to grapple with budget shortfalls of their own, many are unaware of and unprepared to deal with federal education funding cuts that are scheduled to take effect on January 2, 2013.

Last year, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the Supercommittee, failed to reach an agreement on how to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. As a result, a process called sequestration, across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all government programs will take effect unless the U.S. Congress acts. If sequestration is implemented, it could have a tremendous and detrimental impact on early childhood, K–12 and higher education, with far-reaching consequences at the state and local levels.

The Alliance for Excellent Education, Committee for Education Funding, and Coalition for a College- and Career-Ready America held a webinar on September 14, during which panelists discussed the impact of the federal budget debate on education. The webinar (1) provided an explanation of the overall budget process; (2) explained how sequestration would be implemented and its potential impact on early childhood, K–12 and higher education; and (3) discussed what advocates can do to discourage Congress from making major cuts to education programs. Panelists also addressed questions submitted by viewers from across the country.

In case you missed it, check it out:

Sequestration: Are Major Cuts to Education Around the Corner?

Are You Working to Improve Data Use and Common Core Planning for Math?If so, you are invited to an upcoming webinar hosted by the School Turnaround Learning Community.

Using Data to Support Effective Turnaround
Upcoming Webinar: Data Use and Common Core Planning in School Turnaround: Focus on Mathematics
October 3 1:00-2:15pm EDT

This webinar builds on last year's webinar by Russell Gersten and Ben Clarke on Data Use in School Turnaround-Mathematics that focused on different types of assessments, their purposes, what the results imply, and how they can be used in school-based decisions to improve mathematics instruction in the classroom setting.

In this session, we will examine data from one state's end-of-year assessment data in the area of fractions to learn:

• How these data can be used to pinpoint areas for future PROACTIVE class-wide intervention (sometimes called Tier I);
• How data distractors can be used to inform Tier 2 interventions for students who struggle to keep up with the class in mathematics;
• How one state is assisting elementary math specialists in transitioning to and implementation of the Common Core with a focus on research based practices and policy driven practices;
• What to consider resource-wise as we all seek to improve mathematics teaching and learning?

Presenters:

• Russell Gersten, Director of the Center on Instruction's mathematics work and Executive Director, Instructional Research
• Frances (Skip) Fennell, Professor of Mathematics Education at McDaniel College

Register: http://goo.gl/mJXMn

If you are not familiar with the School Turnaround Learning Community, you can learn more and join here, schoolturnaroudsupport.org

Our friends at the National School Boards Association recently announced the creation of the National School Boards Action Center (NSBAC). NSBAC is an organization designed to strengthen school board advocacy at the federal and national level for the advancement of public education, local school board leadership, and excellence and equity in our nation's schools. 

NSBAC has already produced a series of informational documents for school board members and the general public, including a recent report detailing the presidential candidates' positions on K-12 education.

Full details here. 

Attention AASA Members: We need your help!

Accurate and current information on the salaries and benefits paid to American public school superintendents is extremely important to school system leaders and the communities they serve across the nation. Though Education Research Service (ERS) has been a reliable source of much of this information for several decades, ERS recently closed its doors and will no longer conduct its surveys.

As the national organization representing school system leaders, the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) is committed to filling that void through the development of a nation-wide, comprehensive data bank of superintendent compensation and contract information.

Earlier this week you should have received an email invitation to complete the inaugural AASA superintendent salary survey. We hope you will take the time to complete the survey.

If you are a school superintendent and have yet to receive an invitation, email me (nellerson@aasa.org), and I will send you the survey link.

Thanks, in advance, for your help with this!

AASA’s newest toolkit is designed to tell the good news of our nation’s schools and the students they serve. This toolkit is created to highlight the successes our students are experiencing in and out of the classroom, including academic gains, school safety, lifestyle choices and more. The toolkit includes information on responding to media inquiries and delivering powerful speeches/presentations.

With the 2012-13 school year successfully underway, AASA is pleased to provide you with a toolkit designed to help you tell the good news of your district. Teachers and students across the country have been hack at it for several weeks now, and its never too soon to start shining a light on what’s right in public education, using the resources in this toolkit. Feel free to share the resources in the toolkit with your staff, your school board, parents, community members, business leaders, news media and other audiences important to you and your school system.

Welcome letter from Benny L. Gooden and Daniel A. Domenech, introducing and explaining this year’s toolkit

Talking Points and Presentation Materials

• Back to School Talking Points: Telling the Good News!
• Back to School Powerpoint: Use these slides to spread the good news; use in conjunction with the talking points
• Back to School Presentation Tips: A quick 'how-to' for this toolkit, with specific reference to the slides and talking points

Media Resources and Materials

• Back to School Sample News Release: A news release to use with your community (Word)
• Back to School Sample Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Draft Op-Ed to use with your local paper (Word)
• Back to School Media Outreach Tips: Suggestions for spreading the good news (Word)
• Back to School Responding to Media Inquiries Tips for handling media inquiries (Word)
• AASA Resources: Questions? Contact AASA’s Policy & Advocacy or Communications Teams.

Background: Earlier this summer, the Department of Education released a letter that was the first bit of clarification regarding the impact of the sequester on our nation’s public school. The letter clarified that the cuts won’t be felt in schools until the 2013-14 school year. The letter was a much-needed point of clarification, and came—in part—as a response to AASA’s sequestration survey, which reported a complete lack of meaningful information on the sequester.

Late this summer, the President signed the Budget Transparency Act, which required the President to issue a report for discretionary appropriations. The report would detail, among other things, an estimate for each category of the sequestration percentages and amounts necessary to reach the required savings/reduction, including program-specific projections. Anticipating the likelihood of a CR (continuing resolution), the report was to also include a list of the accounts to be sequestered and estimates pursuant to the CR levels. The report was to be issued on September 6.

This so-called transparency report represented an opportunity to provide more definitive guidance about program-level impact for our nation’s schools and was to come on the heels of a flurry of sequestration-related data this summer, much of it covered on this blog:

• AASA’s Cut Deep: How the Sequester Will Impact Our Nation’s Schools (reporting cuts between 8.1% and 8.4%)
• NEA’s Impact of Sequestration on Federal Education Programs (calculated cuts at 7.8% and 8.4%)
• Senator Harkin’s Under Threat: Sequestration’s Impact on Nondefense jobs and Services report (calculated cuts at 7.8%).

Better Late Than Never: Today, eight days late, the administration released the OMB Sequester Transparency report. Given the automatic, across-the-board nature of the sequester, the published numbers are not all that surprising. The report is based on a handful of assumptions/projections:

• The cuts to non-defense discretionary (which includes education funding) would be 8.2 percent. 
• The cuts to non-defense mandatory programs would be 7.6 percent.
• FY13 discretionary funding—under the CR—will be equal to FY12 funding levels.

It should be noted—and has been reported in this blog—that the six-month CR that will be in effect when the sequester kicks in (1/2/13) includes a small increase (roughly 0.6%) over FY12 levels. Final FY13 numbers remain unknown. Between the funding gap of the FY13 CR and the yet-to-be-determined final FY13 numbers, the only certainty is that the sequestration percentages issued in this report are most certainly subject to change. Take them as a framework, not an absolute number.

Looking more closely at education, the cuts to USED will total $4.113 billion. In the full report, you can find the education-related items on pages 60-64. That’s about where the detail ends. While program-specific detail isn’t available in the report, one can apply some basic algebra to determine that an 8.2% cut would mean a loss of roughly $1 billion to IDEA (funded at $12.6 billion) and a loss of approximately $1.3 billion to Title I (funded at $15.8 billion).

Room for Improvement: The Sequestration Transparency Act included a requirement to detail the cuts at the program/project/activity (PPA) level, the report does not delve that far. PPA level reporting would have indicated the specific cuts to Title I, IDEA, Perkins, REAP, etc (like those I calculated in the previous paragraph). Why are the PPA calculations missing? Check out page 9 of the report: “…because of the STA’s reporting deadline of just 30 days, the large number of PPAs across all agencies and budget accounts, and inconsistencies in the way PPAs are defined, additional time is necessary to identify, re­view, and resolve issues associated with providing information at this level of detail.”

As a number wonk, I can sympathize with the task of projecting cuts for the 897 budget accounts included in the report. Providing PPA-level reporting and projecting cuts across thousands of programs/activities is a heavy lift, and the report cites this work burden and quick turnaround as the reason for the lack of PPA-level detail.

On the other hand, as an advocate for school system leaders who have to pass annual budgets, PPA level projections prove crucial to having some basis around which to start planning their budgets for the 2013-14 school year. Budget-account-level cuts, like those included in this report, are not that informative to the general public. I’m not sure they’re really even all that helpful for the average Congress member. It appears this transparency report—designed to help shed light on the issue of sequestration—isn’t all that clear to the audience it was intended for or helpful to the discussions it could inform.

As a numbers person, one thing sticks out: We already know—given that the FY12 used to calculate the numbers in the report is already below the FY13 CR numbers that will be in place on January 2—that the numbers in this report are not final, include a margin of error and will vary slightly from the actual cuts. I find it hard to believe that calculating to the PPA level would provide a margin of error much beyond the one already inherent in today’s report.

A little extra math would go a long way toward providing some type of planning framework for state and local governments that receive federal funding. Sequestration is across-the-board, blind to program effectiveness or value. As such, a rough estimation is as simple as multiplying the base funding level by the projected percentage cut. That is, for each program/project/activity:

Estimated Cut of Sequester = (FY12 funding level) x (8.2% sequester)

If we want to get tricky and attempt to address the funding increase included in the FY13 CR, it’s just one additional step:

Est. Cut of Seq = (FY12 funding level) x (0.612% CR increase)x(8.2% sequester)*

*This is a literal application of sequestration. There are certainly nuances to be considered. I simply provide this calculation to highlight that a little extra math could provide information that might be more helpful to the average American.

What Next: This week, Education Service Agency administrators were in town for their annual legislative conference. When sequestration came up in their discussion, it pretty quickly focused on what is certain to become a big issue: sequestration and maintenance of effort. The federal government is blatantly reducing federal funding to both Title I and IDEA, programs that have maintenance of effort provisions for state and local agencies. What flexibilities can/will be made available to state and local agencies so they are not left on the hook for this federal shortfall?

Also, what about programs like Title I, that have four separate formulas (basic, concentrated, targeted, and EFIG)? Should we assume all four will take the same cut, or will one of the programs (like basic) take the cut?

Beyond this, there’s the general question of ‘What next?’: Will Congress let the sequester happen? Will the Congress take action to address the consequence it assigned itself, picking up the work of the failed Joint Deficit Committee to identify a blend of spending cuts. Revenue increases and mandatory program reforms that will get the nation on track to save $1.2 trillion over the next ten years? Will there be some sort of middle ground, perhaps a plan to kick the timeline down the road, address the amount of cuts needed in one year, or some other half-way approach?

Just a quick analysis. We will continue to cover sequestration information as it becomes available.

Check out this information on the Military Interstate Children's Compact Commission. They work to expand adoption of an interstate compact that would replace the widely varying policies affecting transitioning military students. The compact addresses key educational transition issues encountered by military families, including enrollment, placement, attendance, eligibility and graduation. To date, 43 states have joined the compact.

This compact represents an opportunity for school districts and the military families they serve to smooth student transitions between schools when military families relocate.

Here are some related materials for your review, whether you are in a state that has already adopted the compact or in a state that is considering the opportunity:

• Military Impacted Children Brochure
• Model Compact Language
• Letter from Sec. Duncan to Superintendents, raising awareness re: military children (April 2012)

Earlier this summer, AASA partnered with NAFIS to examine the deep reductions the Impact Aid program would feel as a result of the across-the-board cuts of sequestration. AASA members receiving Impact Aid funding completed the NAFIS survey, and AASA and NAFIS are happy to today release the results of that study.  

Impact Aid and Sequestration: The Impact of the Budget Control Act on Federally Impacted Schools details how schools districts will respond to the cuts of sequestration and how those responses will impact the programmatic and personnel offerings the schools can provide.

Here is the press release for the report:

(WASHINGTON, DC) – After Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011, the clock started ticking for public school districts. First, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (often referred to as the “Supercommittee”) was tasked to find $1.2 trillion in savings which it failed to do. The failure then triggered what is known as “sequestration,” an across-the-board spending cut on all discretionary programs that will take place on January 2, 2013.

While the U.S. Department of Education recently announced that the majority of school districts won’t feel the effects of sequestration until the 2013-2014 school year, for one set of schools – those who are affected by a federal presence in their community –sequestration will hit them in the middle of this school year. “Time is running out on federally impacted schools,” said National Association of

Federally Impacted Schools (NAFIS) Executive Director John B. Forkenbrock. “If the sequester actually goes through, our schools will see an immediate impact right in the middle of this school year. The fact that the federal funding these schools rely on is not ‘forward-funded’ will mean some may even have to close their doors completely.” 

These school districts rely each year on an appropriation from Congress called Impact Aid. Impact Aid is a payment in lieu of federal taxes these schools use to supplement their budgets and stay on a level playing field with other non-impacted public schools. Many of these school districts are responsible for educating children of military personnel and those children who live on Indian Trust and Treaty land, while others live in public housing.  

Because the threat of sequestration singles out these school districts that are already disadvantaged, NAFIS, in coordination with the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), conducted a survey of more than 400 public school districts in the first half of 2012 to try to measure just how devastating sequestration will be within these schools.

“Sequestration represents a very real threat to the nation’s schools,” said AASA Executive Director Dan Domenech. “We welcomed the opportunity to partner with NAFIS and illustrate how the cuts to Impact Aid will negatively impact 1,400 (10% of the nation’s) public school districts. Consistent with school district responses to the recession and general preparation for other sequestration cuts, Impact-Aid receiving districts would absorb the cuts by deferring technology maintenance/purchases, eliminating staff positions, increasing class size and reducing professional development. These are cuts that directly undermine the hard work of these schools to prepare students to be college and career ready, able to compete in an increasingly global economy.”

The survey results, posted on both the NAFIS (www.nafisdc.org) and AASA (www.aasa.org) websites today, show that of the 334 school districts that responded, 36-percent have budgeted the sequester cut into the 2012-13 school year. “Those who have budgeted for the sequester are choosing to put off school building maintenance and are eliminating both non-instructional and instructional staff,” said Forkenbrock. “Many of these buildings are already in disrepair; and these decisions are now putting students at risk…a risk that can be tied directly to Congress’ failure to act. And federally impacted schools, our military and Native American children, will continue to face the effects of impending cuts in coming years unless sequestration is avoided.”

To see the entire survey results, please visit www.nafisdc.org or www.aasa.org.

###

The American Association of School Administrators, founded in 1865, is the professional organization for more than 13,000  educational leaders in the United States and throughout the world. The mission of AASA is to advocate for the highest quality public education for all students, and develop and support school system leaders. For more information, visit www.aasa.org. Follow AASA on twitter at www.twitter.com/AASAHQ.

The National Association of Federally Impacted Schools is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization of public school districts throughout the United States. NAFIS is organized primarily to educate Congress on the importance of Impact Aid and to ensure school districts affected by a federal presence receive the basic resources necessary to provide an education for their students.  NAFIS strives to ensure that the Federal obligation to replace lost revenue for eligible school districts impacted by a Federal presence is met. Follow NAFIS on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/National-Association-of-Federally-Impacted-Schools/246376665411225 and on Twitter at http://twitter.com/nafisschools.

Earlier this evening, the House Rule Committee released details on the FY13 CR. You'll recall (from earlier blog posts) that Congress was unable  to complete its appropriations work before adjourning for August recess. Instead of planning to wrap the work before the start of FY12 (Oct. 1), preliminary groundwork was laid for a short-term continuing resolution, which would level fund the government for six months.

Quick Overview:

• Funds all discretionary programs through 3/27/13.
• The CR includes an across-the-board increase (0.612%) over FY12 levels. That translates into an additional $416.8 million for USED.
• As written, all programs would stand, meaning no eliminations and all would continue to operate under the same terms and conditions of FY12.
• Each Dept (including USED) will have 30 days to provide an operating plan detailing PPA (program/project/activity) levels.
• There is a specific provision related to education, with new reporting requirements related to Highly Qualified Teachers. The proposal extends the definition of highly qualified teachers for those in alternative route programs. Additionally, the proposal requires the Secretary to report the extent to which particular student subgroups (students with disabilities, English Learners, Students in Rural Areas, and students from low income families) are taught by teachers deemed to be highly qualified.

As a school system leader, how would you like to receive feedback on your school’s crisis plan? Here is an opportunity for you to share your district plan and receive a completed checklist used to evaluate the crisis plan for each participant.

I (Noelle) graduated from SUNY Albany, and a fellow Great Dane—a doctoral student studying school psychology—is working on her dissertation, The Impact of Demographics, Training and Resources on the Quality of School Crisis Plans. Her dissertation work involves the above mentioned opportunity. We at AASA are happy to share this opportunity with you.

A note from the candidate:

ATTENTION SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

Would you like feedback on your school’s crisis plan?

I am asking seeking participants for my doctoral dissertation titled, “The Impact of Demographics, Training, and Resources on the Quality of School Crisis Plans.” This is a two-part study that includes completing a questionnaire and sending a copy of the school’s crisis plan for evaluation. The questionnaire asks about school variables related to crisis prevention and intervention planning and can be completed on a survey website by using the web address below.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Schoolcrisisplanning

The school crisis plan will be evaluated using a recently developed checklist that helps to determine if essential components are included in plans. You can send the plan to the primary investigator’s email, which is provided below. If sending electronically, please ensure that your school’s name is on the plan or in the email so that plans can be matched with the appropriate questionnaires. If you would like to send a hard copy of your plan instead, please indicate this on an item towards the end of the questionnaire and a self-addressed, stamped envelope will be mailed to you. Your time is greatly appreciated.

This questionnaire will only take 10-15 minutes to complete, and it is completely voluntary. Although many survey requests seem to have a purpose that does not impact your practice, this research will yield important information on the preparedness of schools. As an incentive for your participation, I will be sending back the completed checklist used to evaluate the crisis plan for each participant. This will ensure that you receive feedback on a document that is essential to keeping your school safe.

No school names will be used in the data software or the write up of this research. I can also send the crisis plan back to you (if you are sending a hard copy) if this is a concern. If you wish to have the plan returned, please indicate this on the form sent to you with the stamped envelope. You may also leave out phone trees or other direct identifying information of faculty and students if this is a concern. However, the plans and questionnaires will be kept strictly confidential and seen only by members of the research team. Hard copies of plans will be shredded upon completion of this study (unless you opt to have the plan sent back to you) and all information will be kept on password protected computers or in a locked file cabinet.

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, feel free to contact me, or my advisor, Dr. Amanda Nickerson. Please keep this form in case you need to reference our contact information. All procedures of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) have been followed, and the IRB has deemed this study to be exempt from review. I will be collecting surveys until October 15^th, 2012 and crisis plans until October 31^st, 2012.

Primary investigator:
Erin Gurdineer, M.S.
Doctoral Student
Division of School Psychology
University at Albany
State University of New York
Albany, NY 12222
egurdineer@albany.edu
(845) 649-4542

Faculty Advisor:
Amanda B. Nickerson, PhD
Associate Professor
Director, Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention
Dept. of Counseling, School, & Educational Psychology
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
428 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260-1000
Tel: (716) 645-3448 Fax: (716) 645-6616
E-mail: nickersa@buffalo.edu
Website: gse.buffalo.edu/alberticenter

This report is several months old right now, but I just found it this week and wanted to bring it to your attention.

The Education Commission of the States (ECS) issued 12 for 2012: Issues to Move Education Forward in 2012. The brief is based on ECS’ scrutiny of reports and research, as well as their analysis of drivers of change. They make no claims that their list is exhaustive or designed to dictate education policy priorities for 2012. Rather, its designed to stimulate thinking around strong, powerful policy across states.

The 12 areas are:

1. PreK: Expanding the focus to P3
2. K-12 Finance: Creating and Maintaining Efficiency and Financial Accountability without Lowering Expectations
3. Blended Learning: Getting Moving, Getting it Right
4. Common Core State Standards: From Talking to Doing
5. Developing Civic Engagement in PK-12: State Action in the Absence of Federal Funding
6. Teaching Quality: Fasten Your Seatbelts
7. Rural: Enhancing the Potential of Education in Rural America
8. Data: Access to What Teachers and Leaders Need to Improve Student Outcomes (and the skills to use it)
9. Individualized Instruction: Faster. Cheaper. Smarter.
10. Performance Funding: Building a Model Without a Blueprint
11. Remedial Education: We Know More Now Than We Ever Have
12. Credentials of Value: Some Are Better Than Others

The Sequester Transparency Report is officially late. You will recall that the report was due on September 6, which came and passed last week. The report did not come out today and isn’t expected until at least Wednesday. 

Congress is back in session this week and is expected to carry a very abbreviated work load. Much attention will focus on the annual appropriations process, which is expected to take the form of a six-month CR. Check the blog in a bit for a details analysis of what is in the CR and how it will impact education.

Information Round Up (from our friends at CEF):

• The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released New School Year Brings More Cuts in State Funding for Schools. The report finds “Twenty-six states are providing less funding per student to local school districts in the new school year than they provided a year ago. These funding cuts have been modest, but, in many states, they come on top of severe cuts made in previous years.” Also, “Thirty-five states are providing less funding per student than they did five years ago.”
• Last month this blog detailed the Republican Party platform. With the wrap of the Democratic convention, we are happy to share the Democratic Party Platform. Education starts on page 36.
• The New America Foundation released Ryan Proposed Budget Cuts Could Mean Millions Lost for Some Districts. The report is a summary of a more thorough analysis, which details—for each district in the nation—how much federal funding it receives, what share of the districts overall budget is composed of federal funding, and the total amount (dollars cut and percent reduction) that district would experience as a result of the 20% budget cut under the Ryan budget.

Policy Insider Fall 2012: This issue outlines the importance of preserving Medicaid as an entitlement program and the critical role school-based Medicaid reimbursement plays in school funding. This issue also contains Part II of a three-part series on digital learning and connectivity in schools. This edition’s installment explores current practices and trends in digital learning, asking what it looks like and the challenges states and districts face as they expand digital learning in their classrooms to change the face of education.

To subscribe to Policy Insider, email Noelle Ellerson (nellerson@aasa.org)

AASA is proud to release the debut edition of the AASA Legislative Trends Report. This report was requested by AASA’s Governing Board at their meeting in July and serves as a tool for members who want to keep up with state education policy trends. The reports will be published on a quarterly basis. The first issue will explore trends and outliers in the 19 states that passed legislation from Jan 2012 to August 2012 related to charter schools, including virtual charter schools. A few trends that became obvious from an examination of state legislation are below:

• Seven states (CA, CO, MN, NH, OH, FC, VA) passed legislation making it easier for charter schools to build, lease, or buy property and facilities.
• Three states (CO, ME, MO) strengthened the ability of charter schools to be audited by the state.
• Three states (GA, MI, OK) allowed for the authorization and funding of virtual charter schools.

To subscribe to receive these quarterly reports, email Sasha Pudelski at spudelski@aasa.org

Assessment Webinar by Forum on Educational Accountability

The Forum on Educational Accountability presents a free webinar, “High Quality Assessment for Instruction and Accountability” on Weds, Sept 17, 2012, from 3:30-4:30 EDT.

High-quality assessment is an essential part of teaching and learning and provides valuable information about school quality and progress. This webinar will present two methods for gathering detailed information – the Learning Record, and performance assessments developed by the New York Performance Standards Consortium. These provide rich feedback to students and teachers, summarize student progress, and in aggregate provide valid and reliable information for public reporting and accountability. We will also discuss how these proven approaches to assessment can inform state and federal policy. The more comprehensive information they provide is more useful than relying heavily on standardized tests. The webinar will begin with three short presentations, followed by questions and discussion.

Presenters include Ann Cook, Executive Director, New York Performance Standards Consortium; Sally Thomas, former director, Center for Language in Learning/Learning Record; Monty Neill, Executive Director, Fairtest, and Chair, Forum on Educational Accountability; and moderator: Tom Zembar, Senior Policy Analyst, NEA.

For more information including how to participate, see http://www.edaccountability.org/EVENTS.html.

As part of our work on IDEA, AASA participates in the IDEA Partnership. One of AASA's liaisons with the partnership is Mary Summers, who passed along this great Common Core resource:

Achieving the Common Core is a resource bank for Common Core State Standards (CCSS) implementation, with tools and resources developed by Achieve and other organizations that are targeted for educators.

Included in the resource bank are advocacy and communication resources; instructional support and alignment resources; implementation planning tools; and state materials and websites. The Achieve resource bank also includes links to CCSS resources developed by external groups such as the IDEA Partnership’s CCSS Collection. AASA contributed to the development of the IDEA Partnership’s CCSS Collection.

Achieve is a bipartisan, non-profit organization that helps states raise academic standards, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability to prepare all young people for postsecondary education, work, and citizenship.

Mary Summers, Liaison to the IDEA Partnership

Just getting back from a beach vacation, here's some additional information on the Race to the Top District competition.

You'll recall that in mid-August, the Department issued the final application criteria for RttT-District. One of the first timelines associated with the application was the Notice of Intent to Apply. School districts intending to apply were requested to notify the Department by Aug 30. With that day come and gone, we now know that nearly 900 (893, to be exact) plan to apply. (It should be noted that is was not a requirment to submit an NIA, and that schools filing an NIA may not submit an application).

You can read the full list (summary chart or detailed list). Nearly half (433) are small districts who will compete for the smallest awards (valued at $10 to $20 million). Roughly one-quarter (roughly 200) will pursue the largest award ($30-40 million). Potential applicants represent 48 states and the District of Columbia (Wyoming and North Dakota are the two states without an application).

893 districts out of the roughly 13,500 in the nation, though, means just 6.6% of schools may apply, leaving an even smaller amount to receive the final award.

Featuring AASA Governing Board Member Tom Shelton (Fayette County Public Schools, Lexington, KY) 

Sequestration:
Are Major Cuts to Education Around the Corner?
Friday, September 14, 2012
2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. (ET)

Panelists
Phillip Lovell, Vice President of Federal Advocacy, Alliance for Excellent Education
Joel Packer, Executive Director, Committee for Education Funding
Tom Shelton, PhD, Superintendent, Fayette County Kentucky Public Schools (Lexington, KY)

As school districts across the country continue to grapple with budget shortfalls of their own, many are unaware of and unprepared to deal with federal education funding cuts that are scheduled to take effect on January 2, 2013.

Last year, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the Supercommittee, failed to reach an agreement on how to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. As a result, a process called sequestration, across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all government programs will take effect unless the U.S. Congress acts. If sequestration is implemented, it could have a tremendous and detrimental impact on early childhood, K–12 and higher education, with far-reaching consequences at the state and local levels.

Please join the Alliance for Excellent Education, Committee for Education Funding, and Coalition for a College- and Career-Ready America for a webinar on Friday, September 14 from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. (ET), during which panelists will discuss the impact of the federal budget debate on education. The webinar will (1) provide an explanation of the overall budget process; (2) explain how sequestration would be implemented and its potential impact on early childhood, K–12 and higher education; and (3) what advocates can do to discourage Congress from making major cuts to education programs. Panelists will also address questions submitted by viewers from across the country.

Register and submit questions for the webinar online at http://media.all4ed.org/registration-sep-14-2012.

Please direct questions concerning the webinar to alliance@all4ed.org.

NOTE: If you are unable to watch the webinar live, an archived version will be available at http://www.all4ed.org/webinars and http://www.collegeandcareerreadyamerica.org/ approximately one or two days after the event airs.

The 2012 bus tour marks the third consecutive year Secretary Duncan and senior staff have promoted education on a back-to-school bus. As mentioned last month, this year’s bus tour will begin in California’s Silicon Valley on Sept. 12th and conclude on the evening of Friday, Sept. 21st at the Department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. Additional stops include: Las Vegas, Reno, and Elko, Nevada; Salt Lake City; Rawlins, Rock Springs, and Cheyenne, Wyo.; Denver, Colorado Springs, and Limon, Colo.; Topeka and Emporia, Kan.; Columbia, St. Louis, and Kansas City, Mo.; Mt. Vernon, Ill.; Evansville, Ind.; Lexington, Ky.; Charleston and McDowell County, W.Va.; and Roanoke and Richmond, Va. More details are available here: http://www.ed.gov/blog/topic/bustour/

Private school vouchers in your district? NIMBY you may say—but think again! School choice advocates are using effective tactics to build and expand private school choice programs at both the state and district level. More than $800 million in dedicated funding was available for school voucher and scholarship tax credit programs nationwide in 2011-12.

Since the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Cleveland’s school voucher program as well as Arizona’s tuition tax-credit program, voucher advocates have been emboldened to find craftier ways of funneling more public education dollars to private schools. By aggressively targeting state legislatures and creating tax credits or voucher programs aimed at traditionally difficult populations of students to vote against (such as students from low-income families, students with disabilities, foster care children, and children of military personnel) advocates are now pushing for voucher opportunities for any public school student, even those attending high-wealth, high-achieving local school-districts.

In AASA’s newest webinar, you will have the opportunity to hear from advocates and lawyers who have spearheaded strong messaging campaigns and shaped robust legal arguments in states grappling with varied voucher and tuition tax credit programs.

Time and Date: September 26, 2012; 2 p.m. ET

Register here: https://knowledgecenter.webex.com

Panelists
Sasha Pudelski, Government Affairs Manager at AASA will moderate the discussion as well as provide background on the current school choice programs across the country as well as what trends are emerging. She will also discuss the push at the federal level for an expanded school voucher program in D.C. and how new governance in the White House in Congress could dramatically increase the likelihood of a federal voucher program

Joe Bard is a spokesman for Pennsylvanians Opposed to Voucher Coalition and has had mixed success in fighting vouchers and tuition-tax credit programs in PA. Joe will share what he’s learned about his opponents, and what strategies have been most effective in stemming statewide school voucher legislation.

Ryan Owens is the General Counsel and Director of Legislative Services for the Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administrators where he has been actively involved in litigation originating from a voucher program for special education students in Oklahoma. In addition, Ryan was on the front-lines opposing a statewide corporate and individual scholarship tax credit program that was passed in 2011.

Liz Harris is an attorney at Husch Blackwell LLP. Liz recently co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of AASA and AFT opposing a first-of-its-kind county-wide voucher program in Douglas County, CO. She will discuss the unique aspects of the case and why a finding of the program’s constitutionality could have huge implications for a push towards district voucher programs throughout the country.

The Military Child Education Coalition recently released Education of the Military Child in the 21st Century, the wrap up for a 3-year study of military-connected children and the impact school policies, processes, programs and systems have on the children's education. The report covers a variety of topics, including deployment, home schooling, children with special needs, assessment, and graduation requirements.  

As you'll recall, the only federal K12 education program that will feel the impact of sequestration in the 2012-13 school year is Impact Aid.  

In an effort to coordinate advocacy efforts around the potential damage of these cuts, AASA partnered with the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools (NAFIS, the group that represents Impact Aid school districts). Part of that effort included making a NAFIS survey available to AASA members that receive Impact Aid funding. The preliminary results of that survey are now available and were released in NAFIS' 2012 Fall newsletter. We're able to share the preliminary results here:

Over 300 NAFIS members and superintendents of the American Association of Schools Administrators completed the “Impact Aid and Sequestration” survey. NAFIS is still analyzing your responses, but one thing is clear: sequestration is having and will continue to have a significantly negative impact of federally impacted schools nationwide. About 35% of districts have already budgeted the sequester into their budgets for the 2012-2013 school year. The results of those cuts are detailed in this PDF. (The top five: delay maintenance and technology purchases, eliminate instructional staff, eliminate non-instructional staff, increase class sizes, reduce professional development).

Here is what some of you had to say about sequestration:

• “We have cut about $4 million dollars out of a $20 million dollar budget over the past four budget cycles. . . If sequestration goes through we will no longer have a single counselor, librarian, P.E./ health teacher or music teacher. It would devastate our district academic program.”
• “We need to hire staff at the beginning of the year not wait until January to see if there is going to be a sequesture. . . School districts serving military families need to offer support as well as a strong educational program and should not be expected to take such a huge reduction in funding.”
• "We will have to 'opt out' for additional property tax relief which will put more burden on our local tax payers.”
• “Our school is the largest employer on the southern end of the reservation and the loss of jobs will have a significant impact on the lives of so many of our families. . . The challenges our children face grow exponentially each year as we continue the downward spiral in education funding.”

Our friends at First Focus recently released a factsheet detailing the impact of sequestration on kids. It estimates that investments in kids will be cut by nearly $6.5 billion if/when the sequester becomes a reality.  

These cuts include $3.3 billion in education, $937 million in early childhood, $926 million in housing, $557 million in nutrition, $376 million in health, and further cuts in child welfare, military education and safety.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 1 pm EDT, Agriculture Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Janey Thornton will host a live Twitter chat focusing on the new nutrition standards for school meals in order to kick off USDA’s “The School Day Just Got Healthier” back to school campaign. 

Take the opportunity to ask Secretary Thornton your questions (or express your concerns/support) about the changes to the school lunch program.

Date and Time: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 1 p.m. EDT

What: USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Janey Thornton will answer questions about the new nutrition standards for school meals.

Where: Tune in online by following the @USDA Twitter account. Use hashtags #AskUSDA and #SchoolFoodsRule to submit questions in advance and during the live Twitter chat.

Yesterday, the Republican National Convention approved the 2012 Republican Party Platform. You can check it out online or as a PDF. Education-related components start on page 35.

Education Excerpts

• Federal Expenditure: Since 1965 the federal government has spent $2 trillion on elementary and secondary education with no substantial improvement in academic achievement or high school graduation rates (which currently are 59 percent for African-American students and 63 percent for Hispanics). The U.S. spends an average of more than $10,000 per pupil per year in public schools, for a total of more than $550 billion. That represents more than 4 percent of GDP devoted to K-12 education in 2010. Of that amount, federal spending was more than $47 billion. Clearly, if money were the solution, our schools would be problem-free.
• Good Practices: We advocate the policies and methods that have ]proven effective: building on the basics, especially STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and math) and phonics; ending social promotions; merit pay for good teachers; classroom discipline; parental involvement; and strong leadership by principals, superintendents, and locally elected school boards.

• School Choice: We support options for learning, including home schooling and local innovations like single-sex classes, full-day school hours, and year-round schools.School choice—whether through charter schools, open enrollment requests, college lab schools, virtual schools, career and technical education programs, vouchers, or tax credits—is important for all children, especially for families with children trapped in failing schools.

• Block Grants and Regulations: We support its concept of block grants and the repeal of numerous federal regulations which interfere with State and local control of public schools.

• Title I and IDEA Portability?: The bulk of the federal money through Title I for low-income children and through IDEA for disabled youngsters should follow the students to whatever school they choose so that eligible pupils, through open enrollment, can bring their share of the funding with them. The Republican-founded D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program should be expanded as a model for the rest of the country

• Supporting DC Voucher Program: We deplore the efforts by Congressional Democrats and the current President to kill this successful program for disadvantaged students in order to placate the leaders of the teachers’ unions.

• Teacher Quality: We support legislation that will correct the current law provision which defines a “Highly Qualified  teacher” merely by his or her credentials, not results in the classroom. We urge school districts to make use of teaching talent in business, STEM fields, and in the military, especially among our returning veterans. Rigid tenure systems based on the “last in, first out” policy should be replaced with a merit-based approach that can attract fresh talent and dedication to the classroom. All personnel who interact with school children should pass background checks and be held to the highest standards of personal conduct.

Budget/Appropriations/Sequestration (Starting on page 3)

• The title of this section sums it up pretty well: Reining in Out-of-control spending, balancing the budget and ensuring sound monetary policy.
• Proposes three-fold test for all federal activity: "We suggest a tripartite test for every federal activity. First, is it within the constitutional scope of the federal government? Second, is it effective and absolutely necessary? And third, is it sufficiently important to justify borrowing, especially foreign borrowing, to fund it?"
• Side note: Would this be applied across-the-board, with equal consideration of defense and non-defense policies?
• Balanced Budget Amendment: "We call for a Constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority for any tax increase, with exceptions for only war and national emergencies, and imposing a cap limiting spending to the historical average percentage of GDP so that future Congresses cannot balance the budget by raising taxes."
• Earlier AASA blog posts point out the short-comings of a BBA when it comes to macro-ecomics like the federal budget: Read them here and here.
• Sequestration: (page 40) GOP PROPOSAL FAILS TO MENTION THAT SEQUESTRATION WILL IMPACT NONDEFENSE PROGRAMS. "Sequestration—which is severe, automatic, across-the-board cuts in defense spending over the next decade—of the nation’s military budget would be a disaster for national security, imperiling the safety of our servicemen and women, accelerating the decline of our nation’s defense industrial base, and resulting in the layoff of more than 1 million skilled workers. Opposition to sequester is bipartisan; even the current Secretary of Defense has said the cuts will be “devastating” to America’s military. Yet the current President supported sequestration, signed it into law, and has threatened to veto Republican efforts to prevent it.”
  

AASA is pleased to release the first of what will be a series of videos aimed at capturing conversations with AASA members covering a broad range of education leadership topics.

In our inaugural video, AASA's Bryan Joffe (Project Director, Ready by 21) talks with Dr. Hite, superintendent of Philadelphia City Schools, about college access and school reform.

AASA's Courageous Leadership Conversation: Dr. Hite

Earlier this summer, President Obama announced a new immigration policy that would allow temporary relief to some undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as children. This temporary relief, also known as deferred action, postpones the deportation of certain undocumented immigrants for two years. To be eligible for deferred action, an undocumented immigrant is required to produce evidence that they are “in school” or have graduated from high school or obtained a certificate of completion from high school such as a GED. It is realistic that former and current students may be approaching your central office staff requesting documents such as diplomas, GED certificates, report cards, and school transcripts for this purpose.

Our friends at TESOL just put together a short policy brief on the deferred action that explains who is eligible, what it does, and how someone can apply. This information may be useful for staff to have on-hand in case students in your district could qualify for this relief. A link to the brief is available here: http://www.tesol.org/docs/advocacy/tesol_policy-brief_august-2012_8-15_final-final.pdf?sfvrsn=2  Official information from the Department of Homeland Security can be found here.

In case you missed it:

Over the last two weeks,  AASA advocacy has participated in webinars related to two of the 'hottest' topics when it comes to federal education policy: sequestration and Race to the Top (District) competition.

Both are an hour long and worth a listen/review:

• AASA Sequestration Webinar, featuring AASA's Dan Domenech, Bruce Hunter and Noelle Ellerson
• College and Career Ready America Webinar on Race to the Top District Competition, featuring Jessica Cardichon (Alliance for Excellent Education), Rob Mahaffey (Rural School and Community Trust), Monica Beglau (eMINTS Mational Center, University of Missouri) and Noelle Ellerson (AASA).

From USED:

On May 22, 2012, the Department of Education announced a new Race to the Top - District grant competition, which is the first ever Race to the Top competition for school districts. The Department began soliciting qualified individuals to serve as peer reviewers in early July and set an application deadline of July 18. We received applications from more than 200 individuals interested in serving as peer reviewers by the initial deadline. Due to the uncertain number of grant applications, however, the Department is continuing to accept peer reviewer applications.

If you are interested in being considered to serve as a peer reviewer for the Race to the Top - District program, please submit your resume/curriculum vitae to racetothetopreview@ed.gov and complete the questionnaire at http://www.mikousa.com/surveys/index.php?sid=68846&lang=en

REVIEWER QUALIFICATIONS
In order to ensure a successful competition, we are seeking qualified individuals with expertise in some or all of the following areas to serve as peer reviewers:

• Four (4) core educational assurances (college- and career-ready standards and assessments, data systems and data use, great teachers and leaders, and school turnaround);
• Personalized learning environments;
• District reform and school level operations;
• Serving rural students or in rural areas;
• Application review and evaluation; and
• Serving high-needs students.

AVAILABILITY
We anticipate that reviewers will need to commit to the following review process:

• First, reviewers will need to be available October 23-24 for a training session in Washington, DC; 
• Then, reviewers will be expected to read, score, and provide comments on no more than five Race to the Top District applications during an off-site individual review (October 30-November 14);
• Additionally, all reviewers must be available Monday, November 19 and Tuesday, November 20 for possible calls to discuss applications; and 

FURTHER INFORMATION
As with other Federal grant competitions, reviewers will receive compensation for their time and effort, contingent upon satisfactory completion of the review requirements and consistent with the required schedule. Travel costs to the events in Washington, DC will also be covered.

IF INTERESTED
If you are interested in being considered to serve as a peer reviewer for the Race to the Top District program, please submit your resume/curriculum vitae to racetothetopreview@ed.gov and complete the questionnaire at http://www.mikousa.com/surveys/index.php?sid=68846&lang=en no later than 11:59 pm (ET) on September 4, 2012.

By Bruce Hunter

The type of scientific polling done by the Gallup organization sometimes finds clarity in public opinion—and sometimes confusion. Each year, the questions asked of respondents reflect a world view of the questioners, so the answers provide insight only into that world view. The 2012 version of the Gallup/PDK poll reflects the framework in which today’s “reformers” view public education. This makes the 2012 poll results more complicated, more frustrating, and more interesting. READ MORE at http://www.aasa.org/headlinecontent.aspx?id=24478.

Two new public opinion polls released this week asked the American public their opinion on public education.

Gallup Work and Education Poll: In a poll released on Monday, more than 1,000 adults from all 50 states were asked how they perceive the federal education law No Child Left Behind and its impact on the nation's schools. When asked if they find NCLB to have worsened or improved education, more respondents reported 'worsened' (29%) than 'improved' (16%). The results come from Gallup's annual Work and Education poll, which was conducted Aug. 9-12 and are consistent with the last time Gallup asked this question in 2009. There are not glaring differences between adults with children in school and those without, though adults in households earning less than $30,000 were more likely (22%) to respond that the law has improved education than those from higher-income househodls (15%).

Annual PDK/Gallup Poll: Today, PDK/Gallup released the 2012 Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. The annual survey is well-known for allowing education leaders and stakeholders to follow public opinion about the nation's public schools. In an increasingly political federal policy climate and heated election year, this year's PDK poll highlights several areas where the public is torn, reporting conflicting positions on the direction, management and investment of public education:

• Respondents were divided on whether teachers should be evaluated based on student test scores, parents should receive vouchers to help pay private school tuition, children of illegal immigrants should receive a free public education, high school graduates are fully prepared for college, the nation's school system is something to be confident in, and the Presidential candidates (and their respective parties) can positively impact public education.

Digging beyond the general trends of division among public opinion, I wanted to highlight some of the findings that caught my eye:

• Lack of financial support was once again the top response listed as a challenge facing the nation's schools. This year's response (35%) was up from 2002 (23%) and markedly higher among public school parents (43%).
• Common Core: Half of respondents think the Common Core standards will improve public educaiton, while 40% believe the standards will have no effect.
• Willing to pay more taxes: Even in this time of fiscal uncertainty, Americans are willing to pay more taxes to provide funds to improve the quality of the nation's urban public schools. Nearly 2/3 of respondents (62%) said they'd be willing to pay more taxes, virtually unchanged from the 66% responding 'yes' in 1998.
• President Obama's rating (performance grading in support of public schools) is at its second-lowest level in the four years the question was asked. 37% of respondents gave him an A/B, down from 41% in 2011, 34% in 2010, and 45% in 2009.
• The public finds the Demcratic Party more interested in improving public education (50% responded Democratic, 38% responded Republican). This is a wider support for the Democratic Party in 2008, when only 44% of the public responded Democratic.
• When asked what the federal education priority should be (balance the federal budget or improve the quality of the nation's education system), nearly two-thirds (60%) of the public responded balance the federal budget. Does this stem from a priority of the federal budget, a belief that education is best served at the local level, or a combination of the two?
• Looking at five-year increments over the last two decades, STUDENTS gave the nation's schools their highest grade since 1992! Nearly half (48%) gave the nation's schools an A/B in 2012, compared to 45% in 2007, 47% in 2002, 46% in 1997, and 40% in 1992.
• As is usually the case, the nation's schools receive a lower grade than the local schools with which respondents are familiar (or to which they send their own children): Three-quarters (77%) of respondents gave the school their oldest child attended an A/B. It's still a case of 'it's hard to grade what you don't know', and only 19% gave an A/B to the nation's schools as a whole. How can 77% of the public find their local school to be A/B, yet have a national system of schools where only 19% are A/B?
• Three-quarters (78%) of respondents think bullying prevention should be part of the school's curriculum.

Another good analysis: Our friends at EdWeek put together a great analysis looking more deeply at the federal-policy related items. Check it out!

Acess the full report. (PDF)

This past Saturday, President Obama used his weekly radio address to call attention to the urge Congress to back a plan to hire teachers.  

The call to action was part of a one-two punch that included the radio address and a new White House report that collectively show the need for Congress to pass proposals to help states reduce teacher layoffs. The report, Investing in Our Future: Returning Teachers to the Classroom, concludes that 300,000 educator jobs have been lost since the official end of the recession in 2009 and that student-to-teacher ratios increased by 4.6 percent between 2008 and 2010.

The report cites AASA data detailing the impact of the recession on districts. Section III (Teacher Layoffs Force Districts into Difficult Choices) starts on page 8 and uses AASA data on job cuts, increased class sizes, summer school reductions, and non-academic program reductions.

Want to read more? Check out the Associated Press story.

Education Insider is a monthly survey published by Whiteboard Advisors where they survey current and former White House and U.S. DOE staff, current and former congressional staff, state education leaders like state school chiefs, and leaders of education organizations, think-tanks, etc. on key education topics. This month's survey asked their group of “Insiders” to interpret what each presidential candidate's election might mean for education, the chances of ESEA re-authorization, as well as what perceptions are around the common core. Here are a few of the survey findings:

• 59% of Insiders think a second Obama term means more of the same on education policy rather than big new initiatives
• 0% of Insiders think President Obama will be tougher on teachers unions in his second term than he is now
• 32% of Insiders think ESEA re-authorization will happen after Jan 2015 and another 32% think ESEA re-authorization will happen by Dec. 2014
• 35% of Insiders think PARCC assessment consortia is on the "wrong track" while 73% think SBAC assessment consortia is on the "wrong track"
• 46% of local school leaders describe their level of support of the common core as "neutral”

The complete survey which contains many more questions and quotes, is available here:http://www.whiteboardadvisors.com/files/Aug%202012%20-%20Education%20Insider%20%28Election%20Check%20In%29.pdf

Secretary Arne Duncan has announced ED’s third back-to-school bus tour. The Education Drives America tour will take Duncan and senior ED leaders across the country.

The bus tour will begin on Sept. 12 in Redwood City, California, and conclude at the Department of Education’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., on the evening of Sept. 21. Additional stops include, Sacramento, California; Reno and Elko, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; Rawlins, Rock Springs, and Cheyenne, Wyoming; Denver and Limon, Colorado; Topeka and Emporia, Kansas; Kansas City and Columbia, Missouri; Mt. Vernon, Illinois; Evansville, Indiana; Lexington, Kentucky; Charleston and McDowell County, West Virginia; Roanoke and Richmond, Virginia.

The tour will highlight education successes and bring communities together to talk about P-12 school reform, college affordability and the link between education and jobs.More details on each stop will be announced in the coming weeks. To receive updates about the tour, SIGN UP for our Education Drives America email list. 

This Sunday, August 19, Fox News Reporting will air "Fixing Our Schools" at 9 pm (and again at 12 am). Mooresville Graded School District (NC) will be featured in this documentary for its Digital Conversion and the academic gains that have occurred since implementation.

Today there was an article in the Wall Street Journal by Mr. Juan Williams previewing the newscast.

In receiving the note about the good work (and coverage!) of Mooresville, the success of MGSD and its Digital Conversion were attributed to all the different stakeholders involved, including teachers, administrators, staff, students, parents and community members.

Should you have a similar experience/story you would like to feature on the blog or AASA Connect, send an email to Noelle. 

In follow up to last week's blog post on the Department release of the Race to the Top District Competition, some more details and information.

First, the Department is encouraging all districts that plan to apply to notify USED by Aug. 30. That is a tight turnaround. The following paragraph relates to the Notice of Intent to Apply and was pulled from the RttT-D Application:

• Notice of Intent to Apply: We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant’s intent to submit an application for funding by completing a Web-based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the applicant’s name and address; (2) whether the applicant is applying as an individual LEA or as a consortium of LEAs; (3) expected budget request; and (4) contact person (and phone number and email). Applicants may access this form online at http://www2.ed.gov/surveys/intent-rttd.html. Applicants that do not complete this form may still apply for funding.

 Second, some more details on what's in the competition, and what's out:

• Enrollment threshold reduced (From 2,500 to 2,000). This is better news for small and/or rural schools and the consortia they may apply in. Further, a consortia may waive the enrollment threshold if they represent 10 or more districts.
• While the final rule moves forward with requiring applicant districts to implement teacher, principal and superintendent evaluation, it removed the proposed requirement for school board evaluations.
• The proposed rules identified different criteria categories (based on whether the applicant is rural or comes from RttT-State level winner). AASA was originally concerned that there wasn't a commitment to awarding a grant in each of the categories (Rural Winner, Rural Non-Winner, Non-Rural Winner, Non-Rural Non-Winner). The final rule clarifies that awards will be made to the top scorers in each category, though we are still waiting to lean what the bar for high-quality will be.
• The emphasis on using personalized 'strategies, tools and supports' remains, though there is decreased emphasis around personalized learning plans for students.
• The application still requires a 10-day comment period for both the State and Mayor. It isn't completely clear what (if any) weight these comments will bear in application evaluation.

AASA will be represented in an upcoming webinar on RttT-D. Weigh in with me (Noelle) to let me know if this is a competitive grant your district will pursue, and why/why not. Thanks!

The US Education Department today (Aug. 10) released the final criteria and application materials/timeline for its Race to the Top District competition. Generally speaking, while there were some changes from the Department's proposed criteria, the final criteria remain largely unchanged. You can review AASA's response to the propsoed criteria here. Based on AASA's major comments, the enrollment threshold was lowered (from 2,500 to 2,000), the ESA definition was NOT adjusted, and we are still reviewing the NIA for clarification re: the poverty threshold, evaluations, and more. Check back next week for further analysis. For now, though, here are the crucial bits of information:

Important Resources:

• Executive Summary
• Fast Facts
• Background on Race to the Top - District Competition
• Application
• Budget Spreadsheets
• Notice Inviting Applications
• Frequently Asked Questions

Timeline: In a word, it is tight. All dollars need to be distributed by December 2012. Seeing as it is already the middle of August, that means school districts have an extremely tight window for committing to apply and submitting and application and the department has a tight window for receiving and processing applications.

• Key Dates:
• Technical Assistance Webinars: Aug. 16 and Aug. 21 2012
• Intent to Apply: Due Aug. 30 2012
• Application Due: Oct. 30, 2012
• Grant Award Announcements: Dec. 2012

A few random things....

Earlier this week, AASA held its Sequestration Webinar. You can view an archived copy of the presentation or download the slides here. During the webinar, AASA was able to announce that the President had signed the Sequestration Transparency Act in to law.  The law calls on the President to issue the report within 30 days (in this case, by Sept. 6). Among other things to be included in the report for discretionary appropriations, there will be an estimate for each category of the sequestration percentages and amounts necessary to reach the required savings/reduction. Given the likelihood of a CR, the report must also include a list of the accounts to be sequestered and estimates pursuant to the CR (continuing resolution) levels. This is a lot of wonk; just know that shortly after Labor Day, there will be a report that will start to clarify the confusion about/answer the bajillion questions that surround the sequester.

Second, you'll recall that AASA is working in coordination with the Non-Defense Discretionary (NDD) Coalition in our efforts to advocate against the sequester. (NDD-generated information is already available in the Updated AASA Sequestration Toolkit.) Earlier this week, NDD released its new grassroots toolkit.It is a great complement to the AASA toolkit: the AASA resrouce is education-specific, and drills down from the more general, discretionary angle that the NDD toolkit covers.

The NDD tooliti includes:

• VIDEO: Deficit Reduction & You: What It's About, Why You Should Care, & What You Can Do About It
  Very high level, 101 discussion is for a grassroots audience. This brief, 13 minute video should help provide context for the current debate and motivate your grassroots to join in. Sequestration FAQs
• FLYER: Think Before You Cut!
  For your grassroots to hand out at events.
• Tips for Town Hall Meetings
  Including sample talking points/questions.
• Tips for Press Events
  Geared for grasstops leaders who want to bring more attention to the issue back home.
• Tips for Writing Letter to Editor, with Sample Letter
• Sample Op Ed
• Tips for Social Media, with Sample Tweets

While AASA and this blog tend to focus solely on education-related issues, many of you are working in states and districts dealing with the record-setting drought conditions now impacting much of the country.

As such, I wanted to share a recently-released document with information and helpful resources regarding the ongoing drought. it's a compilation of resources and flexibilities the administration is working to provide to help farmers and the communities they live in persevere through the drought conditions. Check out the USDA Current Drought Resources and Information (PDF)

This is but a starting point; for further--and the latest--information, check out the USDA drought website. 

As you all begin kick off for the 2012-13 school year, I wanted to share two Common Core teaching resources I came across in the last week. They have a lot of information that could be helpful to you, the principals in your districts and your teachers.

• Success at the Core
• Teaching Channel

Check them out today. 

AASA Executive Director Dan Domenech is joined by Advocacy Team Members Bruce Hunter and Noelle Ellerson. Together, AASA will provide an overview of sequestration, including the latest updates from USED and what school districts can do in August to raise awareness and understanding in Congress for the important work of avoiding sequestration.

Check out the specific webinar webpage, download the presentation, or download the slides!

PS: This webinar is the latest addition to AASA's sequestration toolkit and resources!

With the aggressive push at the federal level for legislation mandating school districts enact polices to prevent cyberbullying and punish students who engage in this behavior, it would seem reasonable to think the rate of cyberbullying was increasingly exponentially. Well, that doesn’t seem to be the case according to new research by the longtime bullying researcher Dan Olweus of the University of Bergen, Norway, who presented his findings at a conference last week. His research on 450,490 students in 1,349 American schools surveyed between 2007 and 2010 found that cyberbullying "is a low-prevalence phenomenon, which has not increased over time and has not created many 'new' victims and bullies, that is, children and youth who are not also involved in some form of traditional bullying." His results show that on average, 18 percent of American students said they had been verbally bullied; those who said they had been cyberbullied was about 4.5 percent. Of the forty-nine states with bullying laws (Montana is the only outlier), only 3 of these states laws does not include cyberbullying in its definition of bullying.

IDEA data collection has always been incredibly burdensome for districts, but the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs has made a few preliminary tweaks to its data collection requirements to temporarily ease the burden on districts and states. Earlier this week they announced that they will stop requiring districts to report on the under-representation of students by race and ethnicity in special education, a change that AASA has vigorously advocated for. The revision is long overdue given the fact that it is difficult for school districts to justify the underrepresentation of minorities in low-incidence disability categories, where the disability is clearly due to factors that school personnel cannot alter. The elimination of the underrepresentation indicators will go into effect for the reporting due in February 2013, or for the 2011-2012 reporting period. 

While OSEP did not go as far as AASA would have liked in reducing the data collection burden, OSEP recently announced they were going to “re-think” district special-education accountability system in order to “shift the balance from a system focused primarily on compliance to one that puts more emphasis on results.” They are currently seeking input on their blog as to how this new framework should operate.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is conducting a detailed study on testing improprieties and is asking for AASA members’ active participation in documenting any testing misconduct that has occurred in your district. Specifically, they are trying to get a sense of whether cheating incidents are school-wide, singular, accidental, a result of fraud by the testing company, etc. If you have a few moments, please fill out this 2-minute survey on the GAO website: https://tell.gao.gov/csa59

Now that the extremely optimistic title of this blog post has caught your attention, it's time to play catch up on a lot of the moving parts related to education funding.

APPROPRIATIONS

• The annual appropriations process continues to move along, though it is not expected to be wrapped before the start of the FY13 fisal year (Oct. 1, 2012). You'll recall that both the House and Senate reached various phases of completion when it comes to the LHHS appropriation.  

CONTINUING RESOLUTION (Updated: the third bullet was updated to correct inverted numbers)

• Anticipating they won't wrap the appropriations work, Congress has begun the work of reaching an agreement for a continuing resolution (the funding bill that keeps government functioning until Congress finishes the appropriations work).
• On Tuesday, Senator Reid and Representative Boehner announced a 6-month CR deal. This kicks the timeline down the road, past the election, into the new year and to the new Congress.
• This CR was set at the top-line level of the FY13 budget caps established as part of last summer's Budget Control Act. That is a $1.047 trillion CR. Typically, CRs level fund government. Level funding (based on FY12) would be at $1.043, meaning there is an additional $4 billion to be allocated.
• There are many questions remaining to be answered, relating to how the additional funds would be distributed: across all programs or targeted to only some?

SEQUESTRATION

• The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the impact of the sequester on defense, featuring OMB Director Jeffrey Zients.
• Though the hearing was designed around defense, Director Zients testified that sequestration is bad policy and would be harmful to both defense and non-defense. His comments included specific references to the impact on education.
• A strong statement lifted from his testimony: "Let me be clear: the impact of sequestration cannot be lessened with advance planning and executive action. Sequestration is a blunt, indiscriminate instrument designed to force Congressional action on achieving a balanced deficit reduction plan. It is not the responsible way for our nation to achieve deficit reduction. It is not a credible substitute for a responsible deficit reduction plan."
• Sign up today for AASA's sequestration webinar!

While there’s been a national trend toward the adoption and expansion of private school voucher programs, particularly for students with disabilities, AASA members in New York were successful in convincing New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, to veto legislation that would have forced school districts to pay for many more students to attend religious schools. Currently, nine school voucher programs in seven states specifically provide vouchers for families with disabled children. The legislation in NY would have required administrators to take into account the “home life and family background” of special education students when placing them in schools. AASA members were aggressive in lobbying the Governor to veto the voucher legislation and we commend them for their efforts. Way to keep up the good fight, guys!

USDA Food and Nutrition Service
2012 Back-To-School Campaign Introductory Webinar
Tuesday, August 14, 2012, 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM Eastern TimeWednesday, August 15, 2012, 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM Eastern Time

Session Description: These webinar sessions will introduce The School Day Just Got Healthier back-to-school campaign aimed at helping prepare students, school staff and leadership, and parents for the changes to school meals. The webinar will include an overview of the resources available to help get the word out and build support for healthy eating in schools. All sessions will contain the same information. 

Target Audience: State Agency Staff, School Food Service Personnel, School Administrators

Participation: These sessions will be available via Microsoft Office LiveMeeting (Webinar) and are free to all participants. You will need access to a telephone line and a computer with internet access for this webinar. To participate, please complete the online registration. Further information will be forthcoming to registered participants. You must register to receive additional information. Connection instructions will be sent prior to the session in which you register for, to the email address you provide in the registration. 

Registration Link: https://www.research.net/s/HealthierSchoolDayWebinar

Recording: All sessions will be recorded and posted online and on-demand soon following the completion of the webinar. All sessions will be posted on the USDA “The School Just Got Healthier” website coming soon.

Additional information: Additional information on the USDA FNS Back-To-School Campaign can be found USDA “The School Just Got Healthier” website coming soon.

Please feel free to forward this invitation on to any interested parties, as appropriate.

Questions?
If you have questions regarding this event, please contact:
Kiev Randall
|USDA FNS
healthierschoolday@fns.usda.gov

The U.S. Department of Education has declared August Connected Educator Month. Throughout August, more than 100 of the nation's leading education organizations, communities, and companies will come together online to celebrate and explore the power of professional online communities and networks to meet the needs of education professionals - novices and leaders alike.

The Connected Educators initiative is being coordinated for the Department of Education by the American Institutes for Research with key support from its partners, including the Consortium for School Networking, Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, Forum One Communications, Grunwald Associates LCC, and the State Educational Technology Directors Association, in collaboration with a wide range of educational organizations and grassroots networks, including AASA

AASA is please to be a participating organization. You can see ALL participating organizations at: http://connectededucators.org/cem/participating-organizations/. 

For the 2008 presidential election, AASA tracked the education platforms of all candidates through the primary and general elections.

The field was notably thinner this year, and only one side had a primary to track. While we aren't providing the full platforms as in 2008, we have covered it before in this blog, and I wanted to make available a collection of links that outline President Obama and Governor Romney's stand on education and other issues"

• Obama on Education (Obama Website; White House Website)
• Romney on Education (Romney Website)
• Obama and Romney on the Issues (AP, 7/30/12) 

Join AASA Executive Director Dan Domenech, Associate Executive Director Bruce Hunter and Assistant Director for Policy Analysis & Advocacy Noelle Ellerson for this can’t miss webinar with everything you need to know about sequestration.

Dan, Bruce and Noelle will give you the complete story of sequestration, from how we got here and where it will take us to what school system leaders can and should be doing to both prepare for the devastating cuts and to work with their Congressional delegation to avoid sequestration. They’ll answer your questions and detail the various sequestration resources AASA has made available to its members.

Topics to be covered:

• What IS sequestration, and how did we get here?
• What programs are subject to the cuts?
• How and when will school districts be impacted?
• Who should I be talking with to advocate against sequestration?
• What are the options for working around sequestration?
• And more!

DATE: Tuesday Aug. 7, 2012
TIME: 3:30-4:30 PM ET

Register today!

THIS BLOG POST HAS BEEN UPDATED. While you can still access the links below, the latest edition of the sequestration toolkit can be found here.

CAUTION: The information below may be outdated.

AASA is happy to re-release an updated version of its sequestration toolkit. In addition to the original overview slideshow and initial sequestration analysis, this updated version includes AASA’s latest economic impact survey, a Congressional Call to Action Invoice and updated resources and talking points from fellow advocacy groups.

• Sequestration & the Schools (Audio Ppt): These slides are a great overview of sequestration, what it is, how we got here, how it will impact schools, and what you can do.
• Cut Deep: How the Sequester Will Impact the Nation’s Schools: AASA’s July 2012 report looking at how schools are bracing for sequestration and how they rate the quality/quantity of information about sequestration that they have access to.
• Survey Says: Superintendents & Sequestration: These talking points are excerpted from AASA's March 2012 economic impact survey, where school administrators weighed in on sequestration and state/local capacity to absorb the cuts and other opinion questions.
• Congressional Call to Action: Sequestration Invoice: All you need is your current Title I, IDEA, Title II and Career/Tech funding levels. Plug them in to this excel spreadsheet, and it does the rest, calculating the cuts at both the 7.8% and 9.1% levels. Save the updated spreadsheet and share it with your Congressional delegation, letting them see how the cuts would impact your district.
• ‘How To’ guide to completing the spreadsheet and template letter (PDF)
• AASA’s Sequestration Invoice (excel)
• AASA’s Customizable Sequestration Letter (word)
• Impact on Advance Funded Programs: An AASA blog post clarifies how the cuts would impact those federal education programs (like Title I and IDEA) that are advance funded. This post has been updated to reflect guidance issued by the Department in late July.
• Our friends at the Committee for Education Funding generated a series of charts diagramming how the sequester will impact the advance funded programs.
• Impact of Sequestration on Federal Education Programs (NEA): National Education Association released a detailed analysis of how the sequester will impact education programs. Each page includes a calculation for the dollar amount that would be cut, the number of students that would be impacted, the potential job losses, and identifies a comparable funding year (almost all are pre-recession levels).
• CEF Stop the Cuts Talking Points: Check out CEF’s sequestration fact sheet.
• NDD Coalition: Education funding is part of the non-defense discretionary portion of the federal budget. In an effort to raise a collective voice about all NDD programs and the threat of sequestration, the education community joined forces with the health and other NDD communities to raise awareness about sequestration. Resources include talking points, FAQs and social media tips.

AASA filed comments in response ot the USDA interim rule Certification of Compliance with Meal Requirements for the National School Lunch Program Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

The interim rule provides performance-based cash assistant to school food agencies compliant with meal pattern/nutrition standards. AASA found the interim rule proposed a method that is cumbersome, confusing, complicated, ineffective and cost-prohibitive.

AASA has received some questions about the appropriateness of exclusive partnerships or other arrangements between schools and/or school districts and institutions of higher education. Coupled with recent media coverage about these agreements, AASA partnered with the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the National Association for College Admission Counseling to provide guidance to school districts as they consider and navigate these types of arrangements.

Read Guidance on Overseeing High School/College Partnerships: (PDF)

Recently, National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) and the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) have received questions about the appropriateness of exclusive partnerships or other arrangements between schools and/or school districts and institutions of higher education, particularly when such arrangements involve sponsorships or other financial considerations that may not be transparent to students, families, or other stakeholders. Schools and school districts must exercise great care in entering arrangements with other entities, as school and school district participation with outside organizations conveys endorsement of a specific product, service, or institution. Accordingly, we urge school leaders and administrators to consider the following guidance when evaluating a partnership proposal.

Establish Consistent Procedures Involving Key Stakeholders

Develop a set of standardized procedures for evaluating potential partnerships with institutions of higher education. In developing and implementing such procedures, involve key stakeholders, including district-level administrators, principals, and school counselors, among others. Core procedures include:

• Conduct independent research into the quality of the postsecondary institution(s) subject to the partnership, including student success rates, cost, and evidence of regulatory concern; 
• Evaluate whether the institution is best-positioned to serve students based on educational and career objectives, geographical proximity, student interest, cost and other factors; 
• Ensure that the school or district does not limit options for students or guide students into programs that will reduce their likelihood of earning a degree or certificate or securing gainful employment; 
• Offer the school community, including educators and families, the opportunity to review information about the partnership and provide feedback to the school or district; 
• Establish protections for students, including monitoring of institutional interaction with secondary students; and 
• Select metrics for the partnership’s success and making plans for periodic revaluation.

We recommend identifying a single point of contact for institutions seeking partnerships. Administrators, teachers and counselors should all be made aware of the formal procedure for developing institutional partnerships, and all institutions seeking partnerships should be immediately referred to the point person or office. The details of partnerships should also be formally established, agreed to by all involved parties, and made available to students, parents and the public.

Yesterday, a bipartisan handful of Representatives sent a joint letter to Secretary Duncan, weighing in with their thoughts on the Department's proposed rules for the Race to the Top District competition.

AASA would like to extend a thank you to the House Rural Education Caucus for drafting and circulating the letter, and to Reps. Sam Graves (R-MO), David Loebsack (D-IA), Mike Thompson (D-CA), Aaron Schock (R-IL), NicK Rahall (D-WV), Bobby Schilling (R-IL), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Glenn Thompson (R-PA) and Bill Owens (D-NY) for signing the letter.

You'll recall AASA filed comments on the proposed rules, and that the Senate sent a similar letter (echoing many of AASA's concerns!) earlier this summer.

In a statement released yesterday, American Association of School Administrators executive director, Daniel Domenech, called the recent announcement from the U. S. Department of Education, “good news!”

On Friday last week, Department of Education Deputy Secretary Anthony Miller issued a clarification to the Chief State School Officers regarding the impact of sequestration on those federal education programs with advanced funds (Title I, Title II, IDEA and Perkins).

According to Secretary Miller, “If Congress does not act to avoid sequestration, and assuming the 2013 appropriations for these four accounts are structured similar to past appropriations,….the Department will take the sequester funds from the funds that will be available July 2013 for the school year 2013-14,” not from funds for the 2012-13 school year.

“This means school districts will not have to begin now making plans for cuts for the coming school year,” said Domenech. “However, we remain concerned about the possibility of further deep cuts to education when schools are already suffering from years of economic downturn. We urge Congress once again to find a way to avoid this disaster.”

AASA has been advocating for a policy solution to avoid sequestration and has been asking the administration to provide information to schools to support their efforts to prepare for deep cuts. On July 10, AASA released a new study, Cut Deep: How the Sequester Will Impact Our Nation’s Schools demonstrating the potential harm that the cuts will have on schools across the nation. In conjunction with the release, AASA also sponsored a panel discussion on Capitol Hill with educators and legislators on the potential effects of sequestration.

Sequestration is the name of the automatic, across-the-board, federal funding cuts, established by the Budget Control Act of 2011, which will go into effect on January 2, 2013, if Congress does not agree on a balanced deficit reduction plan.
For more information, including the text of Secretary Miller’s memo, are available on the AASA’s The Leading Edge blog. 

From Student Achievement Partners:

In order to support district and school leadership in their transition to the Common Core, Student Achievement Partners has developed four professional development modules, including presentations, facilitator’s guides and activities. The modules are designed to be incorporated into summer professional development sessions or during back to school planning.

The four modules cover the following topics: the Common Core Shifts in Math, the Common Core Shifts in ELA/Literacy, Text Dependent Questions in ELA/Literacy, and Instructional Leadership in the Context of the Common Core. We are hopeful that these will serve as a valuable resource for districts and states as they prepare for the coming year and would appreciate your help in sharing them broadly. All the modules can be accessed via achievethecore.org or directly at http://www.achievethecore.org/steal-these-tools/professional-development-modules.

Check out the Dell Foundation blog posts (and embedded infographics) that are great illustrations of some of the myths associated with the use of data in the classroom:

• Making the Education Data Grade 
• Classroom Data Myths

Better late than never in sharing this good news:

Kudos are in order to the trio behind AASA's The School Adminstrator, the monthly publication provided to AASA members.

Jay, Liz and Betsy do all the heavy lifting that comes with producing an excellent monthly magazine. Their work doesn't go unnoticed: AASA members rely on The School Administrator and its excellent features and articles.

Beyond its in-house fans, though, the magazine receives outside recognition, including an award earlier this month. Conratulations to Jay, Liz and Betsy for a job well done, and an award well-earned. Here is the notice from NSPRA:

AASA Magazine Earns Publication Contest Honor

School Administrator, AASA’s monthly magazine, has been named an Award of Excellence recipient in the magazine category of the National School Public Relations Association’s 2012 Publications and Electronic Media Contest.

The award of excellence represents the highest honor in each category. As its contest entry, AASA submitted the September 2011 issue of School Administrator, an issue that mostly focused on the role of courage in school system leadership by sharing self-reflections by 10 superintendents.

NSPRA received 701 entries in this year's nationwide contest, including 537 in the publications’ portion. As an Award of Excellence winner, the magazine was on display at NSPRA’s national conference in Chicago earlier this month, according to an award notification letter from Richard Bagin, the association’s executive director.

AASA will receive a plaque that honors the magazine’s work. School Administrator’s staff consists of Jay P. Goldman, editor; Liz Griffin, managing editor; and Betsy Samson, editorial assistant.

A full list of winners is available on NSPRA’s website (www.nspra.org) in the section titled Awards, Contests and Scholarships.

Last week at the AASA Governing Board meeting, the Governing Board adopted a resolution to oppose federal block-granting of Medicaid. Restructuring the Medicaid program into a block grant system would, in the opinion of most experts, eliminate reimbursement funding for school-based health services. Under a block grant system, the Governor of any state could choose to leave the school-based reimbursement program in the mix, but could also chose not to. In light of the fact that Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, House Speaker John Boehner and Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan all favor block-grants for Medicaid, AASA decided to adopt this position. Read a one-page factsheet on the importance of preserving Medicaid funding for schools.

As part of AASA's advocacy against sequestration, we partner with our friends at the Committee for Education Funding (CEF) who have, in turned, partnered with other coalitions representing the non-defense discretionary portions of the federal budget. Collectively, the NDD portions have already absorbed more than $1 trillion in state, local and federal cuts during the recession, cuts that would be made even deeper should the sequester become a reality.

NDD programs are core functions of government and provide for the benefit of all. Examples of NDD programs include medical research, public health, education and more.

AASA was happy to sign on to the NDD's recent letter to Congress, which compiled more than 3,000 organizations at the local, state and federal levels, urging for a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

You can access the full suite of NDD sequestration resources on their website. I've pulled a few to feature here:

• NDD Sign On Letter (July 2012)
• NDD Press Release
• NDD Fact Sheet
• NDD and Social Media
• NDD and Sequestration FAQs

As reported earlier this morning, the Department has issued clarifying guidance related to how advance-funded programs (including ESEA Title I, ESEA Title II, IDEA and Perkins) would be impacted by the sequester. 

The Department's letter clarifies--contrary to what we and others, including education funding coalitions and several state education departments, have been saying--that if the sequester is triggered, the cuts for the advance-funded programs will NOT occur in the 2012-13 school year. ALL sequester cuts will impact schools during the 2013-14 school year. The depth of the cut for the advance-funded programs would be equal to the percentage cut for all other non-exempt discretionary programs.

Exception: Impact Aid is a current-year funded program and as such would take the cut is the sequester takes place in the 2012-13 school year.

Our friends at CEF have provided quick charts that highlight how the sequester would work for these programs:

• ESEA Title I
• ESEA Title II
• IDEA
• Perkins

• What: Rally to Restore Balance; Avoid Sequestration
• When: Wednesday, July 25 @ 2pm (please gather 1:45 pm or earlier)
• Where: Upper Senate Park (Area 2); Constitution and Delaware Avenues, adjacent to Russell Senate Office Building (for map, click here)
• Featuring: The Honorable Tom Harkin, U.S. Senate
• Joined by: Rita Ngabo, Working Parent

On January 2, 2013, the vast majority of federal nondefense discretionary (NDD) programs will face deep, across-the board cuts. These cuts will impact core government functions that support economic growth, strengthen safety and security, and enrich the lives of every American in every state and community across the nation. Affected programs include medical and scientific research, education and job training, transportation and infrastructure, public safety and law enforcement, public health, and weather monitoring and environmental protection, among others.

These indiscriminate cuts can be avoided—but only if Congress can come together and find a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Please lend us your voice in support of this effort!

To RSVP, contact Sean O’Shea at crdfellow@dc-crd.com, And forward this invitation far and wide!

Please also review the guidelines for participating in a rally, including specifications for signs, here.

UPDATED: This post now includes a link to the text of the letter.

On Friday afternoon, the Department issued the following memo to Chief State School Offices as clarification regarding the impact of the impending sequester on the four education programs with advance funding (Title I, Title II, IDEA and Career/Tech). While the full text of the memo is below, I wanted to clarify some things that are noteworthy:

• The Department finds there is no reason believe sequestration would affect funding for the 2012-13 school year.
• AASA has, until now, been operating under the understanding that the advanced funds from FY12 (which become available under FY13 budget authority and impact the 2012-13 school year) would be subject to the sequester. This guidance reverses that statement: The Department memo explicitly states that the sequester funds would come from dollars that becomes available in July 2013, NOT the advance funds that become available in October 2012.
• Important note: The calculation of sequestration is applied to both the FY12 advance funds and FY13 regular appropriation funds, but the calculated total will come only from the July 2013 funding. The net effect will be to cut the funding level for the programs with advance funds by the same percentage as all other programs/projects and activities.

The memo:

The Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 established a Joint Select Committee in Congress charged with the task of developing a proposal to achieve at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. Unfortunately, last November, the Joint Committee announced that it could not reach agreement on a deficit reduction plan. This failure triggered enforcement via automatic funding cuts, called sequestration, for fiscal year 2013, unless Congress prevents this from taking place by sending the President a balanced deficit reduction plan that does away with sequestration before it goes into effect on January 2, 2013.

Many of you have asked technical questions about how the Department of Education would implement the BCA sequestration in our four appropriations accounts that receive fiscal year 2013 budgetary resources from both 2012 advance appropriations and 2013 regular appropriations. The 2012 advance appropriations become available in October 2012 for school year 2012-13. The 2013 regular appropriations become available in July 2013 for school year 2013-14. Most of the funds in the four accounts with advance appropriations—Education for the Disadvantaged (Title I, ESEA), School Improvement Programs (Title II, ESEA), Special Education (IDEA Part B), and Career, Technical, and Adult Education—get distributed by formula to States and then to local school districts or other entities.

If Congress does not act to avoid sequestration, and assuming the 2013 appropriations for these four accounts are structured similarly to past appropriations (which they are under the pending House and Senate appropriations bills), the Department will take the sequester from funds that would become available in July 2013 for school year 2013-14, not from the 2012 advance appropriations available in October 2012. The amount of the reduction will be calculated by applying the sequester percentage (to be determined by the Office of Management and Budget) to the fiscal year 2013 budgetary resources from both the 2012 advance appropriations and the 2013 regular appropriations that are available for the four accounts. The calculated sequester amount will then get subtracted from the July 2013 funding. The net effect will be to cut the funding level for the programs in the four accounts with advance funding by the same percentage as all other programs, projects, and activities.

It has come to our attention that some States may have urged school districts to hold back on spending for the 2012-13 school year because of the possibility of sequestration. Assuming Congress enacts a 2013 appropriations bill that is structured similarly to the pending House or Senate bills—a reasonable assumption based on past practice—there is no reason to believe that a sequestration would affect funding for the 2012-13 school year.

While a large sequestration of education appropriations would decrease funding for schools and students across the country, the potential for sequestration should not upset planning and hiring decisions for the immediately upcoming 2012-13 school year. Federal funds have already been appropriated and will be provided for this school year, through grants made in July 2012 and advance funds that will be obligated in October 2012.

Most other Department elementary and secondary programs award funds late in the fiscal year for the following school year, either through a formula or following a competition for discretionary grants, so the impact of the BCA on these programs will not be felt until the 2013-14 school year as well. However, the major exception where the BCA sequester could reduce funds for the 2012-13 school year is the $1.2 billion Impact Aid program. Impact Aid provides funds to some 1,192 school districts serving about 949,000 students. About 52,000 of those students are in districts that rely heavily on Impact Aid for a large share of their funds. These districts could experience more significant short-term funding problems due to sequestration than other districts.

Although most of the harm from the sequestration would not be felt in education programs until the 2013-14 school year, the damage from across-the-board cuts in that year would be severe. The Administration has submitted a balanced plan to Congress to avoid a sequestration, and continues to urge Congress to act on that policy. The sequestration was not meant to be implemented; it was meant to drive Congress to enact a balanced deficit reduction plan through the threat of destructive cuts. Time remains for Members of Congress to produce such a balanced plan, and we urge Congress to do so. Secretary Duncan will be testifying on July 25th before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies on the potential harmful impact of sequestration on schools, teachers, and students and will be urging Congress to take action to avoid the deep and indiscriminate cuts in education and other Federal programs that sequestration would entail. However, while we wait for Congressional action, based upon past practice in appropriations, there is little reason to delay hiring for school year 2012-13 due to the threat of sequestration. 

In conjunction with today's advocacy conference and to support today's education media panel, Education Week's superstar reporter Alyson Klein provided this brief blog:

Education Week puts out a free daily e-newsletter, keeping you informed of the latest K-12 developments.

Register for the newsletter here http://www.edweek.org/newsletter.html

Be sure to check-out Alyson’s Politics K-12 blog, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/, an indispensible resource for anyone who needs to understand how policy developments in Washington impact school districts around the country. 

In conjunction with this summer's advocacy conference and related to today's education media panel, Education Writer's Association Executive Director Carolyn Hendrie provided the following information: 

EdMedia Commons is an online community gathering EWA members who want to discuss ideas, issues and insights from all corners of the education policy world. For its first year, EMC’s content was accessible exclusively to members of the Education Writers Association. But on July 23, the community will open, allowing non-members to view all the great content, the site has to offer, from newsmaker interviews to expert roundtables.

EdMedia Commons is a major part of EWA’s online presence, but it’s only the beginning of our offerings to our members on the web.

• The Educated Reporter is a blog written by EWA’s Public Editor, Emily Richmond, offering helpful commentary on hot education topics along with story ideas and resources to that lead to great coverage. 
• Story Starters is EWA’s new resource center, allowing journalists new to the beat or unfamiliar with an ed policy subject to access overviews, data and reports, links to exemplary journalism, experts and story ideas, all in one convenient location. Launched in June with 24 subject areas, Story Starters is an ongoing project that will be expanded and updated regularly. 
• Ed Beat is the EWA staff blog, which often features wrap-ups of panels from our conferences and reports on Washington, DC-based education events.
• Latino Ed Beat is a blog focusing on issues surrounding the education of Latino students in K-12 and postsecondary settings.

We hope you’ll take a look at some of these great resources and even join the discussion yourself. Thanks for your interest in EWA.

 Here are the meeting materials I have from the first day of the conference:

• AASA Advocacy Talking Points (including list of bills we support/oppose)
• AASA Advocacy Brief (slides from Bruce/Noelle/Sasha presentation)
• Celinda Lake: Polling & Election Slides
• Presenter Gary Miron of the National Education Policy Center released a study last week at AASA's conference that found students who enroll in virtual schools operated by K12 Inc. do worse in academics than those who attend a brick-and-mortar school. A fascinating and important read for anyone interested in the the proliferation of virtual, charter school providers. The complete report is available here.

As reported earlier today, the House LHHS Appropriations Subcommittee released its FY13 appropriations bill.

Given our advocacy conference, I won't be attending the LHHS markup tomorrow. The numbers and analysis below may be slightly modified after seeing the committee report and table. For now though, here is some additional detail:

• Title I: level funded
• IDEA Part B: $500 m increase
• Migrant/Neglected (under Title I): level funded
• School Improvement Grants: eliminated
• Impact Aid: $20m increase
• School Improvement Programs: Cut by $126 million, not yet sure which of the programs are cut (this is where we find REAP)
• Comprehensive Cneters: level funded
• Indian Education: level funded
• Rttt: Eliminated. Additionally, the bill rescinds $400 m in unspent RttT funds (this would be the portion intended for the district-level competition)
• i3: eliminated
• TIF: eliminated
• Charter Schools: level funded
• Magnet Schools: level funded
• Promise Neighborhood: level funded
• Career/Tech: level funded
  

It's a busy day here in DC! AASA kicks off its 2012 Advocacy Conference and the House LHHS Appropriations Subcommittee released its FY13 proposal in advance of tomorrow's mark up.

I will get you a more thorough analysis later. Here's what I have for now, though:

You can access the bill online and the education portion can be found on pages 94-115.

Department of Education – The bill funds the Department of Education at $70 billion, which is $1.1 billion below last year’s level and $2.9 billion below the budget request. The bill eliminates many duplicative, inefficient, or unauthorized education programs, including the Administration’s “Race to the Top” program. The bill also includes limitations that prohibit the Department of Education from moving forward with regulations that define “gainful employment” and “credit hour,” or dictates on how states must license institutions of higher education.

• Title I Program – These basic grants to local school districts that help all children become proficient in reading and math are funded at $15 billion, which is the same as last year’s level. 
• Pell Grants – The maximum Pell Grant award is increased to $5,635, due to an authorized mandatory cost-of-living adjustment. 
• Special Education – Special Education grants to states are funded at $12.1 billion in the legislation – an increase of $500 million above last year’s level. This will provide a small increase in the federal share of special education funding to the states, allowing better funding of required special education services.

In follow up to AASA’s well-receive sequestration survey, Cut Deep: How the Sequester Will Impact Our Nation’s Schools, AASA is today issuing a call to action, urging AASA members to take ten minutes to send a note to Congress detailing the impact of the cuts of sequestration.

The timing couldn’t be better: AASA’s advocacy conference is this week, meaning school administrators just like you will be in Washington, D.C. to share these stories in person. Further, Congress is rapidly approaching its August recess, meaning now is the time to get the information to the hill as Congress wraps its final weeks of activity before the recess and fall election.

The approach is two-fold: an excel-driven invoice and a customizable letter. The invoice quantifies the cuts; the letter allows you to qualify the cuts, detailing what it would mean to your district in terms of job cuts, program reductions, and service elimination. All you need to get started is your district’s 2011-12 school year funding level for federal programs, including Title I, IDEA, Title II and Perkins.

Once you enter your district’s funding level into the spreadsheet, a formula will automatically calculate the dollar cut that would mean to your district. From there, personalize the template letter with details about your district and what the cuts of sequestration would do to your district’s budget and ability to support education programming and personnel.

We've assembled everything you need to complete this call to action:

• ‘How To’ guide to completing the spreadsheet and template letter (PDF)
• AASA’s Sequestration Invoice (excel)
• AASA’s Customizable Sequestration Letter (word)
• AASA Sequestration Toolkit

If you have any questions about sequestration, the AASA survey or the resources in this call to action, don’t hesitate to reach out to Noelle (nellerson@aasa.org).

Today, the Institute of Education Sciences released America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2012.

From their press release: "America’s Children in Brief, 2012--a compendium of indicators depicting the latest data and recent trends among today’s children--is now available online at ChildStats.gov. Prepared by the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, the report highlights 14 of the report’s 41 key indicators on important aspects of children’s lives and features 7 domains--family and social environment, economic circumstances, health care, physical environment and safety, behavior, education, and health. All indicator tables and figures are available online at ChildStats.gov."

"According to this year’s report, the infant mortality rate, the preterm birth rate, and the adolescent birth rate all continued to decline, average mathematics scores increased for 4th and 8th grade students, and the violent crime victimization rate among youth fell, as did the percentage of young children living in a home where someone smoked. The report is the 16th in an ongoing series of reports on the well-being of children and families. 

AASA today released the second survey in a multi-part study on the use of seclusion and restraint in public schools. The study, Keeping Schools Safe: Ensuring Federal Policy Promotes School Safety, contains new data on the use of these practices in schools and compares current federal policy proposals with state legislation crafted in collaboration with superintendents.

The study, completed in April 2011 and based on responses from 389 superintendents from across the country, found that
• 94 percent of school districts monitor students at all times when they are in seclusion.
• 97 percent of school administrators end the use of seclusion and restraint as soon as the emergency ends.
• 97 percent of survey participants responded that they do not use mechanical restraints on students under any circumstances.
• 80 percent of all school personnel trained in the use of seclusion and restraint are also trained in nonviolent intervention techniques.

“This study demonstrates that school administrators do not need state or federal law to mandate that they act in the best interest of students when using seclusion and restraint techniques. Administrators are implementing these policies on their own,” said AASA executive director Daniel A. Domenech. “AASA opposes current federal policy proposals. We do not feel that these bills are based on good-faith efforts to craft common-sense, helpful policies.”“No one is advocating the use seclusion and restraint as a standard practice or as a means of punishment,” Domenech continued. “The goal of state and local policy should be to end the inappropriate use of these practices. We know that many states are trying a variety of approaches to learn what is effective. We need to support these efforts and learn which ones are working, rather than rush to pass federal policy without this information.”

The study cites a statute recently passed in Wisconsin—developed with broad support from both school leaders and disability advocates—that offers a model of clear, commonsense standards. In comparing current practices with legislation proposed by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa (S.2020) in December 2011, the study found that the Senate bill:
• Lacks a reasonable option of intervening when a student’s behavior is dangerous or unmanageable.
• Creates onerous reporting requirements for school districts without improving school practice or policy.
• Forbids school personnel from secluding a student for any reason, even if the technique has already proven effective.

Keeping Schools Safe praises the U.S. Department of Education’s recently released Resource Document, which outlines principles for schools to consider as they craft local seclusion and restraint policies. Because of the fiscal constraints of the current economy, however, many school districts cannot afford to comply with particular training and procedural suggestions outlined by the Department. According to the study,

3% of school administrators indicated the elimination of the Safe and Drug Free Funding has made it “considerably more difficult” to fund professional development, training, or programs like positive behavioral support systems and nonviolent crisis intervention and 91% of respondents said their school district would benefit from funding to implement school-wide positive behavioral support and intervention systems and nonviolent crisis interventions. AASA hopes Congress will act to fill this gap.

“If Congress wants to make seclusion and restraint safer and more effective,” commented AASA government affairs manager and author of the study, Sasha Pudelski, “then Congress should provide funds to implement more professional development and training for school staff members on evidence-based practices that reduce the inappropriate use of these techniques. Grants to districts to support appropriate intervention practices, such as positive behavior interventions and supports could make a huge difference in student safety and in school districts’ ability to use these practices wisely.”

AASA will continue to monitor and report on changes to state seclusion and restraint policies and legislation. The complete study, in addition to the first report in the series, is attached and also posted at www.aasa.org/seclusionrestraint.aspx.

It's a busy day for sequestration and education. In addition to AASA's latest economic impact survey (looking at sequestration), the NEA has also updated its sequestration-related information.

The in-depth analysis looks at the overall impact of the potential cuts of sequestration on education (and head start). You can access the full document, and I've excerpted some highlights:

• The broad, blunt cuts of sequestration will reduce funding to the U.S. Department of Education and Head Start by an estimated $4.5 to $4.8 billion. 
•  Sequestration would roll back Education Department funding to pre-2003 levels, impacting between 8.9 million and 9.4 million students.
• Potential job losses are projected to be between 74,600 and 80,500, and the cuts come as schools and colleges enroll 5.4 million more students than they did in 2003 and the costs of K-12 services have increased 25 percent.
• Looking to particular programs:
• Title I funds would be cut by $1.2 billion, dropping to 2007 levels, impacting 1.8 million students and eliminating 16,100 jobs.
• IDEA funds would be cut by $973 million, dropping to 2006 levels, impacting 495,000 students and eliminating 12,600 jobs.
• Title II Grants for Teacher Quality funds would be cut by $207 million, dropping to its lowest level since its creation in 2002, eliminating 2,800 jobs and reducing funding for class size reduction by $77 million.
• Rural Education Achievement Program funds would be cut by $15 million, dropping to 2002 levels, and impacting 400,000 students, even though rural schools have absorbed 70 percent of the growth in the nation’s school enrollment.

In a survey released today, AASA provides the first nation-wide look at how schools are responding to and will be impacted by sequestration.

Cut Deep: How the Sequester Will Impact Our Nation's Schools looks at how schools are preparing for the potentially devastating cuts of sequestration and how the cuts would impact the nation's schools. The survey was released in a press conference on the hill, and featured Superintendents and AASA member Patrick Murphy (Arlington County Public Schools, Arlington, Va.) and Pam Heaston (Assistant Superintendent, Talbot County Schools, Easton, Md.), along with comments from Rep. Walz and Rep. Chris Van Hollen.

“Sequestration represents a very real threat to the nation’s schools, the students they serve and the fragile economic recovery starting to take hold at the state and local level,” said Daniel Domenech, AASA executive director, in releasing the report. “Complicating the threat of sequestration even further is the virtual lack of information about what the sequester would mean, when the cuts would start, which programs would be impacted, and how deep the cuts would be. This report clearly documents a lack of communication between the entity implementing sequestration—Congress—and those who will feel the impact—individuals at the local level.”

AASA President Benny Gooden (Superintendent, Fort Smith Schools, Fort Smith, Ar.) weighed in as well :“AASA recognizes the challenges Congress faces in addressing spending, revenues and mandatory programs,” said AASA President Benny Gooden. “AASA firmly believes that the blunt cuts of sequestration run counter to the widely stated and broadly supported goal of putting our nation on the path to economic health and well-being. The blind cuts of sequestration are not consistent with expectations for the careful use of resources to address critical needs. Instead of a targeted and strategic process, the economic equivalent of carpet bombing is being applied to federal spending. Cuts made regardless of program demand or effectiveness represent poor, short-sighted policy. Many affected programs have been mandated by Congress. Cut Deep illustrates that sequestration is a problem, not a solution; a mistake that dismantles any hope of long-term, sustained economic well-being and growth for our nation’s students and economy.”

A few select excerpts:

• State/ local governments and school districts have very limited capacity to soften the cuts of sequestration. Nine of ten (90 percent) respondents reported that their state would be unable to absorb or offset the cuts of sequestration, equal to the 89.5 percent indicating that their district would be unable to absorb the cuts.
• School administrators report a variety of approaches in planning for sequestration. More than half (54.1 percent) of respondents reported that their budget for the 2012-13 school year built-in cuts to off-set sequestration. Less than half (45.2 percent) of respondents reported that they are waiting to see when/how sequestration unfolds. Their budgets did not build in cuts to offset sequestration, and they plan to ‘…make any necessary changes as needed, when the cuts happen’. 
• The cuts of sequestration will translate to reductions in, and eliminations of, personnel, curriculum, facilities and operations. Respondents reported that the cuts of sequestration would mean reducing professional development (69.4 percent), reducing academic programs (58.1 percent), personnel layoffs (56.6 percent) and increased class size (54.9 percent). As one respondent from Alabama replied, ““The bottom line is that kids…pay the price.”
• School administrators, by a large margin, describe the sequestration-related information provided by the federal government as ‘non-existent’. For those reporting some type of information from the federal government (the administration or Congress), respondents describe the quality of information as poor/very poor.
  
  

Ok, perhaps the title of this blog post is a bit of an oxymoron. Regardless, there are some recent reports that I wanted to put on your radar:

The Center for American Progress released two sequestration-related reports that are worth a once-over. The second one, in particular, references the impact of the sequester on Title I.

• Sequestration Is a Swiftly Ticking Time Bomb and How Sequestration Would Work.
• It should be noted that the second report somewhat oversimplifies how Title I would beimpacted. Joel Packer, Executive Director for the Committee for Education Funding explains the confusion:
• "However, Title I is actually an example of a program with many complications and uncertainties on how sequestration will work.
• Title I has both forward funded FY 12 BA and advanced appropriations Budget Authority (BA) that counts as BA for FY 13, both of which are for use in the 2012-13 school year. The FY 13 appropriations bill will provide forward funded FY 13 BA and advanced appropriations Budget Authority (BA) that counts as BA for FY 14, both of which are for use in the 2013-14 school year
• So, in July 2012 school districts will receive an allocation of Title I funds from the FY 12 forward funded BA. Some of those funds will have not yet been spent on January 2, 2013, but should be exempt from sequestration because unobligated balances of prior year nondefense programs are exempt from sequestration.
• Then, districts in October 2012 will receive another Title I allocation, from the FY 13 advance appropriation that was provided in the FY 12 omnibus. Some of that money will not yet be spent on 1/2/13 and appears to be subject to sequestration, affecting funding right then for the second half of the 2012-13 school year.
• The[n] in July 2013, the allocation from the forward funded FY 13 Title I appropriation will be allocated and will be reduced by the sequester prior to such allocation. That will affect the 2013-14 school year.
• Finally, in October 2013, the allocations from the FY 14 advanced appropriation that will be provided in the final FY 13 appropriations bill will be allocated and should not be subject to sequestration, since the first year sequester only applies to FY 13 new BA.
• Thus, schools are likely to have some Title I cuts take effect immediately in the middle of the 2012-13 school year and additional cuts start at the beginning of the 2013-14 school year.
• The same is true for IDEA, career/tech state grants and teacher quality state grants.'

Census Bureau Report on School Funding: Late last month, the U.S. Census Bureau issued Public Education Finances: 2010, a report that provides tables and figures on revenues, expenditures, debt and assets (cash and security holdings) of the nation's elementary and secondary public school systems for the 2010 fiscal year. The tables include detailed statistics on spending — such as instruction, student transportation, salaries and employee benefits — at the national, state and school district levels. Itt shoudl be noted that the report details an increase in federal funds, which in large part should be attributed to the one-time ARRA funds that became available in 2010.

• Revenue from state sources decreased by $18.0 billion, a 6.5 percent decrease from 2009. This is the largest decrease in state funding from the prior year since the Census Bureau began publishing school system finance statistics on an annual basis in 1977 and only the second year since 1977 in which state funding decreased from the prior year (revenue from state sources also decreased 1.7 percent between 2008 and 2009).
• Total expenditures by public school systems were $602.6 billion, a 0.4 percent decrease from 2009. This decrease in total expenditures marks the first time since the Census Bureau began publishing school system finance statistics on an annual basis that expenditures by public school systems decreased from the prior year.

K12 Database: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation in Houston has announced the launch of a Web-based education database system that provides an overview of the national education reform landscape. “Free and open to the public, the Education Resource Information Navigator Project offers data, resources, and other information in five categories — top funders, current policy, research papers, reform organizations, and technology — across thirteen topics, including assessment, charter schools, curricula and programs, data, school funding, and teachers. Each topic is further divided into specific issues such as recruitment and selection, training, teacher certification, and evaluation. Users have the option of suggesting content to be added to the database.”

This Foundation education work “currently focuses on four major levers for change:

• Efficient Markets: Transforming the existing landscape of public education from a monopoly into a dynamic system providing diverse, high-quality options for families.
• Human Capital: Recruiting, training, measuring, supporting and providing incentives that encourage teachers, principals and other school system leaders to flourish in a competitive environment dedicated to delivering a superior education product effectively.
• Learning Systems: Developing and implementing innovative approaches to learning, including competency-based, digitized curricula with built-in assessments to permit students to learn anytime, anywhere and at any pace.
• Performance Management: Shifting the focus of accountability systems from compliance to performance; creating clear standards and transparent, accessible data to measure performance; and developing incentive and human resources structures that use this data to drive decision-making and improve quality.

Join the American Association of School Administrators on July 10 as we release Cut Deep: How the Sequester Will Impact Our Nation’s Schools. In this survey, 13^th in AASA’s Economic Impact Series, AASA asked school administrators across the nation how their districts are preparing for the sequester, how the sequester would impact their schools and the cuts and eliminations that they would make should the sequestration cuts become a reality.

• Date: Tuesday, July 10
• When: 10 – 11 am
• Where: Capitol Visitors Center 201

AASA Executive Director Dan Domenech will open the briefing with an overview of Cut Deep, going in to detail about the way school districts are planning and preparing for the deep cuts of the potential sequester. He will then facilitate a panel conversation with current superintendents and AASA members who will share their direct experiences in planning for the sequester.

• Moderator: Dan Domenech, AASA Executive Director
• Panelists: Dr. Pat Murphy (Superintendent, Arlington County Public Schools, VA) & Dr. Karen Salmon (Superintendent, Talbot County Public Schools, MD)
• Guests: Rep. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Tim Walz will give remarks.

RSVP Required: Respond to Noelle Ellerson (nellerson@aasa.org) by Friday, July 6.

In a blog post last week, I wrote about the inclusion of a one-year extension of the forest counties program in the transporation bill.  Our friends at the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition just released their monthly update, which includes a more detailed review of what was included in tre transportation bill (as it relates to Forest Counties) along with a look at other moving vehicles related to the long-term solution we are still advocating for.

Check out the June NFCSC Newsletter.

On Friday, five additional states were granted ESEA waivers, giving them flexibility from key provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in exchange for state-developed plans to prepare all students for college and career, focus aid on the neediest students, and support effective teaching and leadership.

The five states receiving waivers on Friday were Arkansas, Missouri, South Dakota, Utah and Virginia, and it brings the total number of states having received waivers to 24. There are 13 applications still under review, and a third round of applications to be submitted just before Labor Day.

Our friends at EdWeek Politics K12 covered it pretty well. Note that the VA waiver is a good example of a state not having to adopt Common Core to receive the flexibility.  

Our friends at CALDER have shared their most recent working paper, looking at portability of teacher effectiveness across school settings. I thought you might find it interesting. Here's the abstract, and a link to the full paper is below:

Abstract: Redistributing highly effective teachers from low- to high-need schools is an education policy tool that is at the center of several major current policy initiatives. The underlying assumption is that teacher productivity is portable across different schools settings. Using elementary and secondary school data from North Carolina and Florida, this paper investigates the validity of this assumption. Among teachers who switched between schools with substantially different poverty levels or academic performance levels, we find no change in those teachers’ measured effectiveness before and after a school change. This pattern holds regardless of the direction of the school change. We also find that high-performing teachers’ value-added dropped and low-performing teachers’ value-added gained in the post-move years, primarily as a result of regression to the within-teacher mean and unrelated to school setting changes. Despite such shrinkages, high-performing teachers in the pre-move years still outperformed low-performing teachers after moving to schools with different settings. 

Access the full paper.

This month, the What Works Clearinghouse released three reports that may be of interest to you. The following list is excerpted from a recent IES/WWC email:

Sato, E., Rabinowitz, S., Gallagher, C., & Huang, C.-W. (2010). Accommodations for English language learner students: The effect of linguistic modification of math test item sets (NCEE 2009-4079). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. View the report at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/SingleStudyReview.aspx?sid=10004

Finkelstein, N., Hanson, T., Huang, C.-W., Hirschman, B., & Huang, M. (2011). Effects of Problem Based Economics on high school economics instruction (NCEE 2010-4002rev). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. View the report at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/SingleStudyReview.aspx?sid=10006