Articles in the Educational Legislation category

Washington group analyzes K-12 initiatives and predicts future steps

Obama administration initiatives such as the Race to the Top (RTTT) competitive grant program and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)/Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waivers have generated more innovation in a shorter time than any other K-12 education reform in recent memory, according to an influential Washington group.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) hosted a forum on July 27 “The State of State Education Reform: What’s Happening, What’s Next?” At the event, the panelists singled out:

  • A wide variety of school improvement strategies
  • Removal of the caps on charter school creation
  • Widespread adoption of college- and career-ready standards
  • A build up of human capacity in the education sector
  • A determined focus on education reform creating a coherent vision of goals to achieve, the means to achieve them and the obstacles that need to be overcome

The National School Boards Association has been following developments in all of these areas because of the critical role school boards will play in implementing these programs, as well as monitoring the role of the federal government. Representatives from NSBA’s legislative advocacy department attended the event.

At the event, panelists John King, New York State Commissioner, Michael Yudin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Strategic Initiatives in the U.S. Department of Education, and Alex Johnston, adviser to the Bloomberg Philanthropies and Chair of the Board of Directors, Policy Innovators in Education, agreed that the RTTT funding was a huge incentive to jump start much-needed reforms and help accelerate reforms many states had already embraced; increase charter school development; and bring an evaluation system into labor-management relations.  The process of developing applications brought together governors, state superintendents/commissioners and state boards of education, and ultimately state legislatures.

King was critical of local school boards for not being more proactive on the innovation front and avoiding interventions with failing schools.  He said he is seeking legislation in the upcoming New York 2013 legislative session to empower the state to remove local boards that have not addressed chronically underperforming schools.

“We’ve been missing that tool,” said King, whose experience before joining the New York Department of Education was with charter school management.

Johnston noted that Connecticut has been identified as having the greatest achievement gap between children in poverty and those from families with more affluence. But the state’s failure to secure RTTT funds motivated both gubernatorial candidates to make education a top campaign issue and continues to be a driving force.

Brown and panelists noted the current widespread diminished and limited capacity of state departments of education in leading change.  Their embedded monitoring and compliance approach, dictated by NCLB and the enforcement of state aid policies, was shifted to an agenda marked by change, school improvement, and increased standards.  The Common Core State Standards have also motivated states to work together on evaluating curriculum, on developing new, upgraded assessments, and on developing a system that relies more on technology for delivering professional development to teachers and principals.  The emphasis on building regional teams has also been reinforced.

The event was in tandem with the CAP’s analysis of the second round of applications for the NCLB waiver program.

This report was compiled by Roberta Stanley, NSBA’s director of federal affairs.

Erin Walsh|July 30th, 2012|Categories: Educational Legislation, Governance, Legislative advocacy, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, School Boards, School Reform, Student Achievement|Tags: , , , , |

NSBA and federal officials warn that sequestration will damage public schools

The U.S. Department of Education says that sequestration would not affect 2012-13 school year budgets, except for districts that receive Impact Aid funds.

However, sequestration—the across-the-board budget cuts slated to occur in all federal discretionary programs in Jan. 2013—could have a profound impact on K-12 budgets beginning in the 2013-14 school year, according to the National School Boards Association (NSBA).

A July 20 memo from U.S. Deputy Secretary of Education Anthony Miller to chief state school officers said that because most K-12 grants to states are given in October, the impact is not expected to occur until the next fiscal year and school districts should not withhold funds in anticipation of mid-year cuts. The sequestration will occur on Jan. 2, 2013 under the Budget Control Act of 2011 unless Congress and the White House approve a different plan to deal with the nation’s debt ceiling.

But the law ultimately could have an “unprecedented impact” on K-12 funding, NSBA officials say.

While news that funding for the 2012-13 school year appears to relieve immediate concerns, “it does not take the pressure off to do something,” says Michael A. Resnick, NSBA’s associate executive director for federal advocacy and public policy. If Congress temporarily delays the Jan. 2 deadline of sequestration, district officials will still be operating in limbo as they prepare their budgets for the 2013-14 school year this spring. And a cut—estimated at 7.8 percent—would severely hinder school budgets.

The 1,192 districts that receive federal Impact Aid funds, which total $1.2 billion this year, would see reductions immediately, according to Miller.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Services, Education and Related Agencies also held a hearing on Wednesday to discuss the impact of cuts to non-defense programs. A report released by the committee’s Democratic leaders said that they have been pressured to exempt defense programs from the sequestration, and either find offsets for those programs or have other programs bear the full brunt of what is estimated to be a $1.2 trillion cut. If defense programs are excluded, other agencies would see cuts of up to 17.6 percent, according to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and chairman of the subcommittee.

The subcommittee report notes that, “States and local communities would lose $2.7 billion in Federal funding for just three critical education programs alone – Title I, special education state grants, and Head Start – that serve a combined 30.7 million children. Nationwide, these cuts would force 46,349 employees to either lose their jobs or rely on cash-strapped states and localities to pick up their salaries instead.”

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan warned of dire cuts at the subcommittee hearing. When asked what would be his priorities to cut under sequestration, Duncan responded that the Department would have no flexibility to determine which programs would be cut, that any cuts would be across-the-board.

NSBA submitted questions and a letter to the subcommittee on July 23.

“More than $835 million was cut from federal elementary and secondary education programs in FY2011 as a result of the series of continuing resolutions and the final appropriations bill. Another budget cut would be counterproductive to student achievement gains and local and national economies, thereby affecting sustainability and growth,” Resnick wrote.
 

Joetta Sack-Min|July 26th, 2012|Categories: Budgeting, Educational Finance, Educational Legislation, Federal Advocacy, Federal Programs|Tags: , , |

More flexibility needed in bill regulating use of restraints on students, NSBA tells Senate

The National School Boards Association (NSBA) is asking for more flexibility for local school officials in a bill designed to prevent the improper use of restraints and seclusion to manage students with disabilities.

In testimony submitted in anticipation of a hearing on July 12, NSBA is asking the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to reconsider portions of the Keeping All Students Safe Act (S. 2020). The bill, which is supported by many special education and disability rights advocates, would ban certain types of restraints and require school districts to report incidents to the U.S. Department of Education.

“Local school boards want to be assured that federal legislation addressing the use of restraints and seclusion provides maximum flexibility and authority to states and local school boards in its implementation,” reads NSBA’s testimony.

NSBA asks that any requirements for teacher and staff training and certification “be structured in a manner that is reasonable, affordable and effective,” and that Congress ensures that data collecting and reporting requirements are minimized, given the limited capacity of school districts and the U.S. Department of Education to collect and analyze such data.

The testimony asks for specific changes to the bill, including:

  • Remove or rewrite the threshold for restraints, based on the definition of serious bodily injury adopted by IDEA in 2004, which is not feasible in emergencies and takes away other opportunities to train staff and prepare for its use;
  • Modify the requirement for a debriefing session within five days, as this is burdensome and costly to schools and would create conditions well beyond the control of the school. NSBA recommends that personnel should be allowed to submit information verbally, in writing and electronically since all parties may not be able to physically participate;
  • Ensure that the bill allows flexibility to address unanticipated threats to students’ safety;
  • Remove a stipulation that prohibits any reference to the use of physical restraints into a student’s education plan; and
  • Allow states that have successfully created policies dealing with restraints and seclusion to be exempt from new federal mandates.

The bill was introduced in December but its chance of passage seems unlikely, given its lack of progress in the House and the lack of time remaining in Congress in an election year.

Joetta Sack-Min|June 27th, 2012|Categories: Crisis Management, Discipline, Educational Legislation, Legislative advocacy, Policy Formation, School Climate, School Security, Special Education|Tags: , , , |

NSBA opposes funding for unproven D.C. voucher program

The National School Boards Association has asked the House Appropriations Committee to eliminate funding for the Washington, D.C., school voucher program, an experimental program which provides tuition assistance for about 1,600 disadvantaged students from the District of Columbia to attend private or religious schools.

The program has repeatedly failed to show effectiveness in improving student achievement over the years,” writes Michael A. Resnick, NSBA’s associate executive director for federal advocacy and public policy, in a June 20 letter.

“At the time when Congress is considering cutting billions of dollars from the federal budget, it should not be spending $20 million of taxpayer dollars, or a 35 percent increase from last year’s funding level, for a small number of students to attend private schools.”

The funding is included in the FY2013 financial services appropriations bill, which is scheduled to be debated by the committee on June 20.

The letter cites four studies by the U.S. Department of Education, ordered by Congress and conducted in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 that found no significant impact on math achievement among students who were in voucher schools compared to their peers in public schools.

In the programs’ first two years, data showed no significant improvement in reading achievement. There were some gains in reading achievement in the next two years, but NSBA noted that students coming from “failing schools” and those who enter the voucher program in the lower third of the test-score distribution—the very groups the program intended to help—showed no improvement in reading.

“Not only does the experimental program lack academic evidence to support its continuation, the [2007 report] documented numerous accountability shortcomings, including federal taxpayer dollars paying tuition at private schools that do not even charge tuition, schools that lacked a legally-required city occupancy permit, and schools employing teachers without bachelor’s degrees and/or certification,” Resnick writes. “It also noted that children with physical or learning disabilities were underrepresented compared to public schools.”

 

Joetta Sack-Min|June 20th, 2012|Categories: Educational Finance, Educational Legislation, Legislative advocacy, Mathematics Education, School Vouchers, Student Achievement|Tags: , , , |

Advocacy focus at Annual Conference

NSBA is strengthening its efforts to advocate in Washington on behalf of school boards and public education and has launched a new campaign to push Congress to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

NSBA has created the National School Boards Action Center (NSBAC), a 501-c4 organization that will coordinate with NSBA to raise its profile and elevate school board advocacy on Capitol Hill. The Action Center “is being established in recognition of the growing importance of the federal role in education, and the need for local school boards to have a higher profile in Washington,” says Michael A. Resnick, NSBA’s associate executive director for federal advocacy and public policy. “It will build on the strength we already have in Washington.”

The organization, which will be directed by Resnick, has a separate seven-member board of directors, with four members from NSBA’s board and three from state association boards. NSBAC will devote more time to lobbying and advocacy than the current organization, which is designated a 501-c3 by the Internal Revenue Service.

NSBA is also pushing Congress to revamp the 10-year-old No Child Left Behind Act because many aspects of the law are seriously flawed and damaging public schools across the country.

Over the next three days, attendees at NSBA’s Annual Conference will hear about NSBA’s “ESEA Now” campaign. This week, NSBA’s advocacy department held a “call-in day,” and will hold a second call-in day on May 9, for school board members to contact their representatives.

Nearly half of all public schools are now deemed “failing,” and are pushed into sanctions that have had little to no evidence of improving schools or student achievement. While the Department of Education’s waiver program fixes some of the concerns, it also imposes new requirements on school districts. Go to NSBA’s website (www.nsba.org/ESEANOW) for more details about the campaign and talking points for contacting members of Congress.

To learn more about strategies for meeting with members of Congress, don’t miss “Sharpen Your Lobbying Skills for Effective Meetings with Members of Congress,” from 1:30 to 2:45 p.m. Sunday in room 152. This interactive session will show attendees how to set up face-to-face meetings and maximize the time spent with representatives.

Each year, NSBA’s advocacy staff offers conference attendees multiple sessions to learn about the latest trends in Washington. One of this year’s top issues will be school funding, as several proposals by fiscally conservative Washington lawmakers attempt to dramatically reduce federal spending across all discretionary programs. Learn more at “Burning Hot Topics on Capitol Hill,” scheduled for 8:30 to 9:45 a.m. Sunday in room 253B.

Saturday’s notable sessions on advocacy issues include: Getting Ready for the Common Core State Standards, 8:45 to 9:45 a.m.; Emerging Legislative Issues Facing Local School Boards, 3:45 to 5 p.m.

On Sunday, notable sessions include: Charter Schools: Finding Out the Facts, 1:30 to 2:45 p.m.; The Federal Legislative Process and Local School Board Issues, also 1:30-2:45 p.m.; and Food for Thought on Child Nutrition Reauthorization, 3:15 to 4:30 p.m.

On Monday, the National Education Spotlight session will focus on legislative updates from 8:30 to 9:45 a.m. That will be followed by Building a Network of Education Activists in Your Community, 10:15 to 11:30 a.m.; and Emerging Legislative Issues Facing Local School Boards, 12:30 to 1:45 p.m.

For a complete list of the conference’s advocacy offerings, go to the Annual Conference website on www.nsba.org, then click on Search Sessions, and look under the category Federal Advocacy.

Joetta Sack-Min|April 20th, 2012|Categories: Educational Legislation, Legislative advocacy, NSBA Annual Conference 2012|

The week in blogs: Obama’s education budget (abridged)

Want to get the high points of President Obama’s K12 budget — that is, without sifting through all the numbers and the fine print? Read the Quick and the Ed post by Rikesh Nana on the “three key takeaways” from the Administration’s proposal. It’s an excellent synopsis of what the president is proposing and what it all means.

So what are those takeaways? In order: consolidation of Department of Education programs (something that’s been tried in past budgets but never adopted): continued funding of Race to the Top and other competitive grant programs; and — in the absence of congressional action — an administration-sponsored overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

OK, sports fans, this next column is not about Jeremy Lin. (But if we find one on the New York Knicks sensation that has to do with K12 education, we promise to include it next week.) Instead, Eduwonk’s Andrew Rotherham looks at the firing — and quick rehiring by another team — of NHL hockey coach Bruce Boudreau and what that says about the importance of professional “fit.” Hint: It applies to teaching as well as big-time sports.

Been to Cleveland recently? Even if you haven’t, or have no plans to do so, you’ll want to check out another interesting Quick and the Ed blog on the city’s “portfolio” system of managing schools. Schools would operate with greater or lesser autonomy depending on their performance. “Charter schools as well as district-operated ones would participate,” says the blog by Richard Lee Colvin, “with the goal of giving families a real choice among several good options in every neighborhood.”

Lastly, check out Mark Bauerlein of the Chronicle of Higher Education on the attitudes and academic habits of college freshman. Here’s an interesting paradox (actually a bunch of paradoxes): more than 70 percent of students placed their academic ability in the “highest 10 percent” or “above average,” but only 45 percent felt that confident about their math ability, and just 46 percent believed they were that stellar in writing.

Lawrence Hardy|February 17th, 2012|Categories: 21st Century Skills, Budgeting, Charter Schools, Educational Legislation, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, School Reform, Student Achievement, Teachers, Week in Blogs|Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Congress members say changes to ESEA are coming

Two former school board members and current U.S. Representatives promised Federal Relations Network (FRN) Conference participants that changes are on the way for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Reps. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., and Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., vowed to support local control and local school boards in speeches at a luncheon session on Monday.

“I see a consensus,” said Thompson. “I have yet to find anyone on Capitol Hill who doesn’t believe [the No Child Left Behind Act] is broken and doesn’t need major changes.”

Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce Committee continue to use four guiding principles as they work to create a bill to overhaul the mammoth ESEA: restoring local control; empowering parents (including offering school choice); letting teachers teach by removing the mandate for adequate yearly progress (AYP); and protecting taxpayers’ investments.

Biggert received a round of applause when she said NCLB had not worked the way it had intended.

“We really did overstep,” said Biggert. “AYP was not a good idea.”

She also promoted the need for STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) subjects to grow the nation’s economy.

“We have to lay a foundation to equip our future,” she said.

Thompson, on the other hand, entertained attendees with stories about being a school board member and member of Congress, noting that he had to pay to have things fixed around his Pennsylvania home that he might have done himself before he had entered Congress.

NCLB was designed on the “false premise that every child will go on to a four-year college. But I believe that every child is different and there are many pathways to success in life.”

After having to pay to have repairs to his home, Thompson said he’d come to appreciate the value of career and technical education.

Joetta Sack-Min|February 6th, 2012|Categories: Educational Legislation, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Federal Programs, FRN Conference 2012, Legislative advocacy, STEM Education|Tags: , , , |

Dealing with federal mandates

It took awhile for Reginald M. Felton, NSBA’s assistant executive director for Congressional Relations, to get the audience to tell him what they really felt about federal turnaround models for low-performing schools – things like replacing the principal and half the staff, or closing the school entirely.

But once they got going…..

“Punitive!”

“Private sector engagement!”

“Loss of district authority.”

Now the attendees of the Federal Relations Network (FRN) session on Monday were on a roll – and why not? Because what sense does it make, for example, to replace the principal and half of his or her staff – one criteria for receiving an Obama administration School Improvement Grant – when they’re already the best you’ve got, and when removing them would only cause more disruption?

The Senate’s proposed draft for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) has similar language about replacing principals, shuffling staff, or turning the campus into a charter school.

“There’s so little freedom for what a superintendent or a principal can do,” said a New York State board member, “because of state and federal mandates.”

Instead of receiving unfunded mandates from the federal government, schools should be given the authority to decide what they think is best for their students, said Steven Carter, a board vice president for the Connally Independent School District in Texas.

Carter said board members should be encouraged to ask: “What are the [interventions] you need with this school, at this point in time, with this student body.”

All true, Felton agreed. But then he turned the discussion around, asking the board members about the policies they did have significant control over, such as deciding what kind of local student assessments to use.

“What are some of the ideas that you can do from this day forward that can introduce real change?” Felton asked.

Audience members talked about paying attention to individual students, not simply the system as a whole. And they said schools should reach out to students’ families and communities.

Felton said the House of Representatives’ discussion draft for ESEA reauthorization is much less prescriptive than the Senate version. It does not mandate any specific turnaround models and “delegates full authority to states to design, develop, and implement strategies.”

 

Lawrence Hardy|February 6th, 2012|Categories: Educational Legislation, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, FRN Conference 2012, Legislative advocacy, Policy Formation|Tags: , , , |

The week in blogs: A gentleman’s C?

Education Week’s Quality Counts 2012 came out this week and with it the annual State of the States report card.  So how did the nation do?

“Overall, the nation received a grade of C across all policy and performance areas, which remained the same as a year ago,” writes Jim Hull, senior policy analyst for NSBA’s Center for Public Education.

 That’s the average. But if you want to know whether that’s a half-full C or half-empty one, you’ll need to read the details, which Hull summarizes in his EDifier blog. The good news: states have been taking steps to improve their standards. The not-so-good news: states haven’t been especially innovative in terms of teacher policies.

One big teacher policy issue, value-added teacher evaluations, received a boost this week from a Harvard/Columbia study of teacher effectiveness, writes Hull in his second blog this week. For another look at the study, read Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. And for background, see the Center’s report “Building a Better Evaluation System.”

One critic of value-added is education historian and former Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch, who says in a recent blog that they “never” should be used.

Also read Ravitch’s post “NCLB Death Star,” which you have to admit — however you feel about the federal law that turned 10 this month — has a great title.

The Big Questions kept coming this week with a rather brave post by Jay Mathews, of the Washington Post’s Class Struggle blog, who revisits the issue of Intelligent Design and says (for a second time) that he thinks it should be taught alongside evolution.

After his first blog on the subject, Mathews received 400 not-so-nice e-mails. “Seventy percent of them said I was an idiot,” Mathews quipped. “Many added that I was a dangerous idiot.”

However, Mathews has an interesting reason for wanting Intelligent Design included. And — as you might expect — his post sparks a lively discussion.

 

 

Lawrence Hardy|January 13th, 2012|Categories: 21st Century Skills, Assessment, Center for Public Education, Educational Legislation, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Student Achievement, Week in Blogs|Tags: , , |

The week in blogs

Depending on your point of view — and your experiences with high-stakes testing — No Child Left Behind was either a critical first step toward school accountability, a good idea with some major flaws, or a colossal flop. (And there’s probably a myriad views in between.) Will the Common Core State Standards Initiative be any better? As you might expect, the views expressed by a number of experts on the National Journal’s education blog are all well-reasoned — and all over the map. Nobody said this was going to be easy.

Alberta has one of the best school systems in the world, writes the provocatively-named blog Dangerously Irrelevant, and it doesn’t look too kindly on what’s happening to its south. Thanks to This Week in Education for pointing out this eye-opening critique of why Canada seems to be getting things right in school reform – and much of the U.S. is getting it wrong.

Another must-read is the review of a new Department of Education report on school inequity from Raegen Miller of the Center for American Progress.  Then, on the same site, see Robert Pianta’s proposals for improving teacher development.

Finally, a non-education story, strictly speaking, but one that says a lot about what it takes to be an effective leader – including a leader in a school district. Yes, it’s a sports column (by the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins) and yes it deals with recent coaching changes on two of Washington’s pro teams, which, most of you I would imagine do not care a whole lot about. ( I live here, and even I don’t care that much.) But — trust me here — Jenkins’ message about the kind of leaders people follow goes beyond mere games.

 

Lawrence Hardy|December 2nd, 2011|Categories: Board governance, Educational Legislation, Educational Research, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Governance, Leadership, National Standards, Professional Development, School Reform, Student Achievement, Teachers, Uncategorized|Tags: , , , , |
Page 5 of 35« First...«34567»102030...Last »