 FEDERAL UPDATE
Week of February 10, 2006
BUSH FY07 EDUCATION BUDGET RELEASED –FEW FUNDING INCREASES
An austere FY07 federal education budget was released this week by the Bush Administration.
Funding levels for most K-12 programs remain the same as those received in FY06. But because
Congress instituted a 1% across the board cut to final FY06 spending, FY07 levels are in most
cases less than FY05 funding.
Title I basic grants ($12.7 billion), teacher quality state grants ($2.9 billion), Reading First ($1.1
billion), 21st Century Community Learning Centers ($981 million), English Language
Acquisition state grants ($621 million), and assessment state grants ($408 million) all earned
no funding increase for FY07.
While these programs were status quo, two programs are slated for massive cuts. Education
technology state grants (-$272 million) and the Safe and Drug Free Schools state grants (-$347
million) would be completely eliminated.
On the positive side of the ledger, the proposed budget includes a $100 million increase for
special education state grants, $125 million to implement proven math instructional practices in
grades K-7 (modeled after the Reading First literacy program) and $125 million to promote
research-based math interventions in middle schools. $90 million in new money would also be
provided to increase AP and IB classes offered to low -income students. Funding to subsidize
enhancements to state data systems would be increased by $30 million, to $54 million total.
Perhaps the most interesting item in the budget is a new $200 million earmark under the Title I
account for school improvement grants. This funding is specifically intended to help build state
capacity to provide technical assistance and other improvement activities to schools identified as
“in need of improvement” or facing sanctions or interventions for repeated failures to make
adequate yearly progress.
Notwithstanding the disappointing funding levels, the budget is not without controversy. The
most notable of these is the Administration’s proposal to tap the Perkins’ vocational education
program’s $1.2 billion for its high school reform initiatives. Under the budget proposal, the
Perkins money could be used for vocational training or put toward helping students at-risk of
failing core academic subjects or dropout prevention. As part of the initiative, high schools
would be required to test students in reading and math in two grades, the results of which would
be used for accountability purposes akin to the No Child Left Behind Act testing and
accountability provisions.
Last year, the White House made this same proposal to fund its high school reforms with
Perkins money. At that time, however, the Perkins program had yet to be reauthorized. In the
interim, Congress has overwhelmingly approved (99-0 in the Senate) a five-year renewal of the
Perkins program maintaining a singular focus on career technical education. Indeed, a House-
Senate conference committee is working on compromises for the final differences between the
two chambers’ Perkins bills. The budget treatment of Perkins funds can be seen as evidence of
the fiscal constraints confronting the Administration in it attempts to promote such an
important and high-profile education reform. The fact that high school reform does not receive
any new money, and indeed, has to share funds with Perkins voc ed activities highlights the
relatively meager investment being made to initiate a national high school reform movement. At
a minimum, however, the policy proposals should be considered a marker for the priorities the
Administration will pursue in next year’s reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.
The other most controversial budget item is $100 million for “opportunity scholarships,”
federally-funded vouchers for students in schools “in need of improvement” that could be used
to pay for private or religious school tuition. Families sending their child to a private school
would be eligible for up to $4,000 for tuition, fees and transportation. Parents could also choose
to use the money to pay for supplemental education services like after-school tutoring, for which
they would be eligible for up to $3,000.
Program 2005 (in millions) 2006 (in millions) 2007 Request (in millions) Title I Basic Grants $ 12,739 $ 12,713 $ 12,713
Special Education State Grants $ 10,589 $10,583 $ 10,683 School Improvement Grants (Title I) $ -$ - $ 200
State Assessments $ 411 $ 407 $ 407 High School Reform $ -$ -$ 1,475 Reading First State Grants $ 1,041 $ 1,029 $ 1,029
Math Now for Elementary School Students $ - $ $ 125 Math Now for Middle School Students $ -$ -$ 125
Advanced Placement $ 29 $ 32 $ 122 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants $ 2,916 $ 2,887 $ 2,887
Education Technology State Grants $ 496 $ 272 0 Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants $ 437 $ 347 0
America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids $ -$ -$ 100 Charter School Grants $ 217 $ 214 $ 214
21st Century Community Learning Centers $ 991 $ 981 $ 981 State Grants for Innovative Programs $ 198 $ 99 $ 99
Rural Education $ 170 $ 168 $ 168 English Language Acquisition State Grants $ 582 $ 620 $ 620
Impact Aid $ 1,243 $ 1,228 $ 1,228 Striving Readers $ 24 $ 29 $ 100 Perkins Vocational Education State
Grants $ 1,194 $ 1,182 (shifted to HS Reform) Tech-Prep $ 106 $ 104 (shifted to HS Reform)
NEW REGULATIONS TO TEST SPECIAL ED STUDENTS PROPOSED
In mid December Education Secretary Margaret Spellings proposed a new set of rules governing
how states and districts are to test severely disabled students in compliance with No Child Left
Behind requirements, and how to hold schools accountable for the test results of such students.
The change proposed by the Secretary would allow states to develop “modified achievement
standards” and assessments based on those standards for students with disabilities. States and
districts would then be able to use up to 2% (of all students tested, not just those testing on the
modified achievement standards) of proficient results to help meet adequate yearly progress
(AYP) goals. This 2% of proficient results is in addition to the Department’s previously approved
rule allowing 1% of the most cognitively disabled students to be given alternate assessments and
to count the results as proficient for AYP purposes.
States establishing such modified achievement standards must ensure that they be aligned with
grade-level content. This requirement has caused a great deal of confusion and Department
officials to date have not sufficiently clarified exactly how achievement standards can be
modified while still maintaining grade-level content. Indeed, according to the rationale included
in the proposed regulation, “modified achievement standards must be aligned to grade-level
content standards. Although the breadth and depth of the standards may be reduced, it is grade-
level content standards, not ‘extended’ standards or instructional-level standards, that must be
the basis of the assessment and the modified achievement standards. If a State’s content
standards include 20 different statements of what a student should know, it would not be
appropriate to reduce the number of standards assessed on modified achievement standards to
address only a few of those content standards.” (emphasis added)
The Department has suggested two assessment modifications to help measure these modified
achievement standards states might want to consider (States can design a new assessment or
alter an existing grade-level test):
• “Changes to content, such as coverage of a reduced number of grade-level content
standards that have been identified by the State as essential for progress to the next
grade” or
• “Changes to test formate or administration, such as modified item format or response
options, or sue of only selected portions of the assessment.”
The Department insists that it “will not set a specific numerical goal of how many standards
should be addressed” but that any state proposal will be peer-reviewed for setting meaningful
academic expectations for all students.
Under the proposed rule, the determination for which students will be able to take the modified
assessments will be based on decisions by the student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
according to guideless created by states.
Also, the regulations would allow states and districts to use the test scores of students previously
identified as having a disability in determining AYP for the “student with disability subgroup”
for up to two years after a student stops receiving special education services.
In total, then, the proposed regulations would allow states and districts to exempt up to 3% (1%
alternate standards/assessments and 2% modified standards/assessments) of students from the
regular standards and assessments proficiency used for AYP. Under current rules, states can
request an exemption from the 1% cap. Should the new regulation be adopted, states would not
be permitted to request exceptions to the 1% or 2% caps.
States have until February 28 to comment on the proposed regulation. For more information or
to submit comments contact the following official at the U.S. Department of Education:
Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Ed.D.
Director, Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW.
Room 3C156, FB–6
Washington, DC 20202 –6132
Phone – 202 -260-0826
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, you may address them to us at the U.S.
Government Web site: http://www.regulations.gov.
Or you may send your Internet comments to us at the following address:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
You must include the term ‘‘proposed 2% rule’’ in the subject line of your electronic message.
NASBE LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE – MARCH 16- 17, 2006
IF you want to know about:
· Shifting all of Perkins’ $1.2 billion out of vocational education activities
· New federally-funded voucher initiatives
· Level Funding for Title I
· Elimination of Ed Tech State Grants and Elimination of Safe and Drug Free Schools
· New high school testing requirements as part of High School Reform
· Flexibility options and reform proposals for NCLB “2”
…Then You Need To Attend NASBE’s Legislative Conference. These issues and more will be
covered at NASBE’s Legislative Conference. Learn more about these proposals and ask
questions of federal officials and lawmakers about their initiatives, priorities, agendas and vision
for public education in America. REGISTER NOW! Click her to view: AGENDA or to
REGISTER
QUOTE OF THE LAST 216 YEARS
“Nor am I less persuaded, that you will agree with me in opinion, that there is nothing which
can better deserve your patronage, than the promotion of Science and Literature. Knowledge is
in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one, in which the measures of government
receive their impression so immediately from the sense of the community, as in ours, it is
proportionately essential. To the security of a free Constitution it contributes in various ways: By
convincing those who are entrusted with the public administration, that every valuable end of
government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people: And by teaching the
people themselves to know, and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions
of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between
burdens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience, and those resulting from the inevitable
exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing the
first, avoiding the last, and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with
an inviolable respect to the laws. Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording
aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by
any other expedients, will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the Legislature.”
President George Washington, in the very first State of the Union address, 1790.
|
Federal Update 
