Upload
maeve-elson
View
215
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
OAASFEP
APRIL
2014
LATE
ST DEVELO
PMENTS
IN W
ASHINGTO
N
L E I G H M A N A S E V I T , E S Q .
L M A N A S E V I T @ B R U M A N . C O M
B R U S T E I N & M A N A S E V I T , P L L C
W W W. B R U M A N . C O M
FEDERAL L
EGISLA
TIVE
UPDAT
E
AGENDA
• State of Congress
• Federal Funding
• Policy Legislation & ESEA Waivers
• Some Miscellaneous Agency Rules
• Omni Circular
3
STATE
OF
CONGRESS
4
CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL
<Source: PPP Poll, October 2013 5
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO CONGRESS?
• Political angling on rare issues that are seeing some activity
• “sacred cows” fair game• Rapidly accelerating retirements/electoral
turnover• Short term (one-cycle) fixes to problems• Constant crisis
6
THE NEXT BIG HURDLE: ELECTION 2014• Little time left
• Members playing to a number of constituencies:• Special interest groups (NRA, EMILY’s List, unions,
environmental groups, etc.)• Parties and party subdivisions• Party leadership (for money/ leadership positions)
• Racing to make an impact on areas visible to voters
• See these priorities make an appearance through:• Legislative action• Hearings/meetings/round-tables• Public discussions and statements
• What’s left out? Substantive policy legislation
7
OMNIBUS 2014
Massive, $1.1 trillion FY 2014 spending based on agreed-to caps
Individual appropriations account bills drafted by Appropriations subcommittees, then combined
Brings funding for non-defense discretionary federal programs nearly – but not quite –to pre-sequestration levels
8
OMNIBUS 2014
ESEA Title I
ESEA Title II
IDEA Part B
Head Start0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
FY 2013 (pre-sequester)
FY 2013 (final)
FY 2014
(in millions of dollars)
9
WinnersHead Start
Increase over FY 2012 (COLA), plus $500 million for Early Head Start
Early EducationNew $250 million for competitive Race to the Top Early Education program
School NutritionNew $25 million in competitive school equipment grants
Losers Department of Labor programs (except WIA)
Targeted programs (like Rural Education, Advanced Placement, Promise Neighborhoods) – no increase over sequestration
President’s universal Early Education proposal (Race to the Top early education instead)
President’s higher education Race to the Top proposal (early education instead)
10
OMNIBUS 2014
OMNIBUS 2014 – POLICY RIDERS
Charter School Grant Program Assurances Student achievement is the most important factor in
renewing a charter SIG Changes
New grants 5 years Two new models (partnership with experienced
organization, State-designed with ED approval) IDEA Maintenance of Effort
State – no permanent penalty (1 year penalty per year of violation)
LEA – Congressional intent agrees with ED’s 2012 “Letter to Boundy”
11
PRESIDENT’S PROPOSAL
ESEA Title I – frozen at current levels
IDEA Parts B, D – frozen at current levels
IDEA Part C: $100 million (0.9%) increase
Perkins CTE – current levels
AEFLA State grants – current levels
ESEA Title II: $350 million cut (-14.9%)
Preschool Development grants: $250 million increase (would double the current program)
Promise Neighborhoods: $3.3 million increase
ConnectED Professional development: new $200 million program
New preschool program ($66 billion over 10 years)
12
ESEA: SENATE
Strengthening America’s Schools Act of 2013 (S. 1094) passed out of Committee on party line vote June 12th, 2013
Based largely on waivers Requires standards, assessments, performance targets Sets “n-size” at 15 students Increased data/reporting requirements (cross-tabulation) Interventions in priority/focus schools Adds personnel expenditures to comparability calculation States must implement teacher/principal evaluations
Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) said he hopes to get it to the floor, but prospects still murky approaching NIL
13
ESEA: HOUSE
Student Success Act in (H.R. 5) passed House of Representatives on July 19, 2013 Similar to bills passed in 112th CongressEliminates AYP, HQT requirementsStates would get to set own performance targets, little federal guidance
Teacher/principal evaluations required (with student achievement as a significant factor)
Overall smaller federal role
14
Consensus: reauthorization will wait until 2015 or later
S.S. Senate
S.S. HouseESEA
ESEA: OVERALL
15
NATIO
NAL WAIV
ERS
UPDAT
E
16
WAIVERS SO FAR
42 States and DC have been approved for waivers Many waivers “conditional”
Have not applied: Vermont (withdrew) Montana North Dakota Nebraska California (???)
17
States with waivers
States with applications under review
ADDITIONAL WAIVERS“CORE” District waiver
August 2013 Nine California school districts State, accountability?
Teacher Evaluations Delay implementation of new teacher evaluations using
student growth One additional year (until SY 2016-17)
Double-testing States can give each student either their own tests or a
consortium field test BUT each student must take a “complete” test in both math
and English/language arts States can also ask to delay reporting/accountability
18
WAIVER RENEWAL CONCERNS
George Miller (et al) to Secretary Duncan, February 12, 2014 –
- Renewals must focus on needs of students
- Concerns:• Super Sub groups mask smaller group
accountability• HS graduation rates for subgroups
• ELLs, SWDs• Teacher Equity
19
WHAT’S NEXT FOR WAIVERS: HIGH RISK
States having problems with teacher/principal evaluation systems (all got conditional approval)KansasOregonArizonaWashington
ED says that if not in compliance by end of SY 2013-14, revoke • At Council of Chief State School Officers
meeting in November 2013, said that would likely “have to revoke” “two or three” by summer 2014
20
Can’t approve something too far afield from “principles” Complaints from other States
Politically risky to revoke waivers States back to NCLB Backlash from States, Congress
Want to push Congress to reauthorize ESEA Congressional discontent over waivers
may drive some action Want to frame reauthorization debate
21
HIGH STAKES FOR ED
ADMINISTRATION WEIGHS IN ON DISPARATE DISCIPLINE Joint ED DOJ Letter, January 8, 2014
Discipline:
• Administration encourages policies that are fair and avoid disparate impact
• Impact high rates of suspension / expulsion
• Disparate impact on minority students
22
Response:
• February 12, 2014 Letter, Rep. John Kline, Chairman• “We believe such policies are best handled by the teachers, state officials and local school leaders…”
23
HEALT
HY,
HUN
GER-
FREE KID
S ACT,
2010
COMMUNITY
ELIG
IBILI
TY
OPTIO
N
24
COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY OPTION
Eligible schools – Free Meals – All students
Available to all LEAs 2014-2015 with eligible schools
25
COMMUNITY ELIGIBLE OPTION
Eligible School1. 40% students certified-free
meals through means other than household application
SNAP / TANF
26
COMMUNITY ELIGIBLE OPTION
2. Multiplier (initially 1.6)3. Conduct certification at least
once every four years (more frequently optional)
4. Reimbursement based on resulting number
27
COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY OPTION
Title I Implications:Disaggregation: economically disadvantaged
All studentsEligibility based on poverty:
All students
28
COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY OPTION
Title I ImplicationsSchool Eligibility and Rank and Serve
Use number from multiplier
29
USDA GUIDANCEFebruary 25, 2014
-LEA may include all or some schoolshttp://
www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-evaluation
-Eligibility may be school x school –
-Group or
-Aggregate of total
30
No Rounding!!!
…39.98% DOES NOT qualify(AG actually says this)
31
RECENT FERPA GUIDANCE
Released Feb. 24 by Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC).
www.Ptac.ed.gov
Clarifies privacy requirements for online tools
PTAC accepting comments at [email protected].
32
PRIVACY GUIDANCE
Focuses on privacy and security considerations relating to:
Computer softwareMobile applications (apps)Web-based tools provided by a third-party to a school or LEA that students and/or their parents access via the Internet and use as part of a school activity
33
ONLINE ACTIVITIES
Student access for class readings
View student’s learning progression
Watch video demonstrations
Comment on class activities
Complete their homework
34
METADATA
Large amount of contextual or transactional data as part of online operations
Considered protected under FERPA unless stripped of all direct and indirect identifiers
If provider is granted access to PII under FERPA exceptions:
May use metadata that is not linked to FERPA-protected information for other purposes, unless otherwise prohibited by the terms of their agreement.
35
ONLINE TOOLS: BEST PRACTICES
Maintain awareness of relevant federal, State, tribal, or local laws,
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act: Requirements for providing online educational services to children under 13.
Be aware of which online educational services are currently being used in your LEA, for example through an inventory of all such services.
36
BEST PRACTICES (CONT.)
Have policies and procedures to evaluate and approve proposed online educational services, including:
Formal contracts No-cost software and that requires only “click-through” consent.
Schools and LEAs should always be transparent with students and parents, and consider when parental consent might be appropriate.
37
BEST PRACTICES (CONT.)
When possible, use a written contract or legal agreement that includes provisions on:
Security and data stewardshipCollection of dataUse, retention, disclosure, and destruction of data
Right of parents and students to access and modify their data
Other items where appropriate.
38
BEST PRACTICES (CONT.)
Extra steps are necessary when accepting “Click-Wrap” licenses for consumer apps.
When consumers are required to click “OK” or “Accept” when purchasing or downloading software.
Schools and LEAs should:Check amendment provisions print or save the terms of service limit authority to accept such terms
39
THE S
UPER C
IRCU
LAR –
“OM
NI
C IRCU
LAR”
THE O
NE -S
TOP S
HO
P FO
R
FEDERAL A
SS I STAN
CE
AND FIN
ALLY…
OMB REV
ISED
ADMINIS
TRAT
IVE,
COST
,
AUDIT R
ULES G
OVERNIN
G
ALL F
EDER
AL GRANTS
KEY DATES:
Feb 1, 2013 NPRMDec 19, 2013 FinalDec 26, 2013 Federal RegisterApril 2014 New OMB Compliance
SupplementJune 26, 2014ED Draft EDGAR
ChangesDec 26, 2014 Final EDGAR
Published
41
DATE OF APPLICABILITY OF REVISED RULES
OMB stated on 12/20/13 All Drawdowns, after December 26, 2014
? ? ? 42
WHAT IS COVERED?A-102 – Administrative Rules State /
Local – Part 80 – EDGAR
A-110 – Administrative Rules Postsecondary – Part 74 – EDGAR
A-87 – Cost Rules – State / Local
A-21 – Cost Rules – Rules – Postsecondary
A-122 – Cost Rules – Nonprofit
A-133 – Audit Rules (>$750,000)
43
WHO IS COVERED?
All “nonfederal entities” expending federal awards
44
REASONS FOR THE CHANGE?
1. Simplicity2. Consistency3. Obama Executive Order on
Regulatory Review Increase Efficiency Strengthen Oversight
45
WHO CRAFTED THE CHANGES?
“COFAR”Council on Financial Assistance Reform, and Key Stakeholders
www.cfo.gov/cofar
46
INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN PROGRAM STATUTE AND CIRCULAR
If federal program statute or regulation differs from Omni Circular, then statute / regulation governs.
47
MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
Shift from focus on Compliance to focus on PERFORMANCE!!!
48
PERFORMANCE
Auditors (A-133 + Federal OIG) and Monitors (Federal and State Pass Through) must look more to “outcomes” than to “process”
49
FLEXIBILITY
The “Omni Circular” adds significant flexibility to way grantee / subgrantee can adopt their own processes
50
QUESTIONS?
51
Disclaimer
This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. Attendance at the presentation or later review of these printed materials
does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based
upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular
circumstances.
52