Are states shirking their responsibilities around two of the Every Student Succeeds Act’s (ESSA) most important provisions for historically underserved groups of students? A new analysis says yes.Federal Flash delves into the findings, plus a Senate education committee hearing on ESSA implementation and the latest on the bill funding the U.S. Department of Education.
A new Alliance for Excellent Education (All4Ed) analysis finds that many states are not fully implementing the letter–or the spirit–of the Every Student Succeeds Act or ESSA. All4Ed released the analysis ahead of a Senate education committee hearing on ESSA implementation, which we’ll cover later in this post.
All4Ed previously created “ESSA Equity Dashboards” for most state ESSA plans. These dashboards assess states on fourteen equity-focused policies in the law. In terms of actual outcomes for kids, however, not all of our indicators are created equal. That’s why our new analysis summarizes the two most important equity policies from the dashboards: (1) inclusion of subgroups in school ratings and (2) definitions of “consistently underperforming” subgroup used to identify schools for targeted support.
Unfortunately, the results are mixed, with many states at risk of masking the performance of historically underserved students. In other words, a school could receive an A rating, but have a graduation rate for African American or Latino students of only 60 percent – which is hardly an A. And in many states, low-performing students may not receive the assistance they need to excel because their schools are not identified for support.
Specifically:
12 states are red because they don’t include subgroups of students in all school ratings. Another 23 states get a yellow because they don’t include all of ESSA’s subgroups in ratings or are at risk of obscuring subgroup performance on school report cards. Just 17 states get a green rating for including all ESSA subgroups in all school ratings.
On the second indicator, 16 states are red because they are at risk for under-identifying schools for targeted support. 30 states earn a yellow because students will likely need to fail across multiple indicators before the school is identified for support. In other words, it won’t be enough for a subgroup to simply be below grade level in reading. Students would need to struggle in reading, math, and other areas before being identified. Only 6 states get a green for using a definition of consistently underperforming where subgroups receive support if students are struggling on a few key measures – like achievement and/or growth.
These two issues – school ratings and school identification – were major concerns raised by senate democrats in this week’s committee hearing.
But ESSA accountability wasn’t the only issue raised. Democratic senators called on Secretary Betsy DeVos to use her authority to prevent states from using federal funds for guns. Republican chairman Lamar Alexander, while he dislikes the idea of arming teachers, said states have the flexibility to use funds under Title IV of ESSA as they see fit.
Finally, the fiscal year 2019 funding bill for the U.S. Department of Education and several other agencies passed both chambers of Congress this week and President Trump has said he will sign it.
This is the first time since 1996 that the bill funding for the Department of Education has been signed into law before the start of the new fiscal year. This is notable because it allows states, districts, and schools to know what funding they will have for certain education programs prior to the beginning of the fiscal year.
This blog post represents a slightly edited transcript of the September 28 episode of Federal Flash, the Alliance for Excellent Education’s five-minute (or less!) video series on important developments in education policy in Washington, DC. The video version is embedded below. For an alert when the next episode of Federal Flash is available, email at alliance@all4ed.org.
Title II, the $2 billion grant program for teacher development, will likely remain intact for fiscal year 2018, despite President Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate the program entirely.
Congressional leaders unveiled a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill last night, and the House has already passed the package. The Senate must act by midnight on Friday to avoid a government shutdown. Trump is expected to sign the bill.
Title II money is used for teacher professional development and class-size reduction. Trump’s budget proposal eliminated the grant program, saying that the money is “spread too thinly to have a meaningful impact on student outcomes. In addition, there is limited evidence that teacher professional development … has led to increases in student achievement.” This is not a new argument—the Obama administration also questioned the effectiveness of the program and decreased its budget from nearly $3 billion to about $2.3 billion.
But the proposal to eliminate Title II sparked backlash among the education community. Title II advocates said state and district leaders are working to improve professional development, in large part due to the Every Student Student Succeeds Act, which calls for PD programs to be evidence-based….
Read the full article here. May require an Education Week subscription.
President Trump wants to arm teachers to prevent, or reduce the carnage from, future school shootings like the one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., this month. “A teacher would have shot the hell out of him before he knew what had happened,” Trump said last week about the attacker in Florida. He’s not the only one who thinks this is a good idea: Several states are already considering legislation to allow guns to be carried into schools, ostensibly to protect kids.
But putting guns into the hands of schoolteachers would be extraordinarily dangerous for black and Latino students, who are already often forced to try to learn in hostile environments where they’re treated as threats.
How long would it be, if Trump’s plan became reality, before a teacher shoots a black student and then invokes the “I feared for my life” defense we continually hear from police officers who misinterpret young black people’s behavior with deadly consequences?
A mountain of data on persistent racial biases and disparities in education and on police presence in schools — as well as a recent increase in racial harassment in schools — makes it clear that kids of color won’t be safe if their teachers are carrying weapons…
The Trump administration may shift the focus of its school-choice agenda to a group of students that the federal government has a special responsibility for: children connected to the military.
Creating education savings accounts for the children of military personnel has support among some conservatives. But some advocates for military families have been cautious about embracing the idea.
Still, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said in a recent interview at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington that there’s clearly an appetite among military families for more choice.
“I know for a fact that for more than a third of active-duty military families that have school-age children, their decisions where they go, or where they don’t go, or whether they continue to serve, hinge very heavily on the opportunities they have for their children’s education,” DeVos said. In a 2017 survey by the Military Times, 35 percent of service members with children said dissatisfaction with their children’s education was a “significant” factor in deciding whether or not to continue with their service. “So I think we have an opportunity in that regard to empower them with some more of those choices.”
Read the full article here: May require an Education Week subscription.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump announced new leadership for the White House Initiative on HBCUs.
Johnny C. Taylor Jr. is now the new Chairman of the President’s Board of Advisors on the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This position comes not long after Taylor was appointed to be the president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in June of last year. Taylor is the former president of Thurgood Marshall College Fund.
At the White House event announcing the new leadership, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos praised HBCUs for their cultural and historical significance in her remarks ahead of Trump.
“HBCUs play a very important role in American education,” she said, according to CBS News.“Under President Trump’s leadership in supporting and uplifting HBCUs, we are taking important steps to ensure that HBCUs and the students they serve remain influential players in their communities and in our country.”
DeVos then introduced Trump, who touted the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and thanked the team working on the initiative.
Trump also praised HBCUs as being “cherished and vital.” A White House press release notes that Trump’s proposed 2018 and 2019 budgets maintain funding for HBCUs.
Taylor offered his own words about the appointment. “Every year, over 300,000 students turn to these institutions for their education and to prepare them for their careers. This president’s advisory board can be a nexus between higher educational institutions and employers,” he said.
DeVos and Trump have a rock relationship with HBCUs
We’re not fooled by Trump and DeVos making a big show of their support for HBCUs.
We haven’t forgotten the fact that DeVos called HBCUs “pioneers of choice” and had to issue an apology for her comments.
“When I talked about it being a pioneer in choice it was because I acknowledge that racism was rampant and there were no choices,” she said in August after her comments caused massive backlash. “These HBCUs provided choices for Black students that they didn’t have.”
Some HBCU students did not accept the apology. In May of 2017, Bethune-Cookman University students booed DeVos and turned their backs to her as she tried to give remarks during their graduation ceremony.
We also haven’t forgotten that infamous picture of Trump surrounded by HBCU presidents in what turned out to be more of a photo opportunity than an actual productive meeting.
In Bob Marley’s iconic anthem of conscience, “Redemption Song,” he asked, “How long shall they kill our prophets while we stand aside and look?”
Florida now joins that ugly tragic club of states that have seen their children sacrificed to the false god of gun obsession. Too many are hiding behind the Second Amendment and refusing to come to some common sense solutions that would at least make it harder for crazy people to kill us.
Now the students are getting tired of watching the grown people do little to protect them and are planning a march on Washington March 24. As students are confronting terror, our president is blaming the FBI and everything but the fact that military weapons bought legally are mowing down people in the church, in movie theaters and in our schools.
Days after the public execution of President John F. Kennedy, a solemn Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. spoke words that ring true still today:
Our late President was assassinated by a morally inclement climate. It is a climate filled with heavy torrents of false accusation, jostling winds of hatred, and raging storms of violence.
It is a climate where men cannot disagree without being disagreeable, and where they express dissent through violence and murder. It is the same climate that murdered Medgar Evers in Mississippi and six innocent Negro children in Birmingham, Ala.
So in a sense, we are all participants in that horrible act that tarnished the image of our nation. By our silence, by our willingness to compromise principle, by our constant attempt to cure the cancer of racial injustice with the Vaseline of gradualism, by our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim, by allowing our movie and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing, by allowing all these developments, we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes. – Martin L. King Jr. 1963
King also said that we lived in a “10-day country” where the anger and passion will give way to business as usual. President Obama lamented after yet another mass murder that our responses have become “too routine.”
The question is do we care to do anything other than pray and feel sorry about this? I don’t think the people losing loved ones are so nonchalant. Maybe this time the Florida school children will do what no one else has been able to…demand that politicians do something about mental health and weapons of mass murders.
The student’s march on Washington will not be about liberal and conservative; it will not be about red Republican or blue Democrats and it will not be about race. This march is in fact about how easy it is to obtain guns more lethal than what was used in Vietnam. These weapons are not aimed at terrorist or the Viet Cong, but at unarmed men, women and children running for their lives while others hide behind worn out excuses.
The murderers who slaughtered in Las Vegas, Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Orlando and now Parkland, obtained these weapons legally. Not pistols or shotguns to protect their homes but military-style weapons to spread horror.
Spare me that crap about if you take guns away only criminals will have them! You think that there are no criminals in Japan or Germany? Is there no mentally unstable in Canada or Australia? Of course, there are!
What is different is that it is much harder to get an assault weapon in those countries! Do not blame diversity either because Britain and France have multicultural societies but not as many mass murders as we have. Even in this country, there are fewer murders in states that have stricter gun control.
No one is asking America to give up her guns and have no means of protection. That is the bold-faced lie the gun people yell out to keep from having a sane conversation about common sense machine gun control.
The NRA will tell you that the problem is that we have enough laws and all that is needed is to enforce the ones we have. Alright well, what is the NRA doing about that? They are pretty good about lining the pockets of mostly Republican politicians who in return go nowhere near any real gun control, even though the majority of the American public says it wants something done!
Yes, even gun owners say they would like stricter background checks and fewer assault weapons on the streets but Republicans conveniently ignore those wishes in favor of money from the NRA.
Where was the NRA when Philando Castile was killed after telling the policeman he had a legally registered gun and what Republican stood up for the Marissa Alexander who went to jail for firing a warning shot under the Stand Your Ground law? Both just happened to be black and frankly, race is a fuel that drives many of the gun nuts.
The Second Amendment was made when there were no police and no machine guns. It also talks about a well-regulated Militia, which to me suggest that people be well trained to use their guns. No one wants to stop people from protecting their family but you don’t need weapons made for warfare.
Donald Trump attempted to deflect attention from his “Putin love” by suggesting that the FBI could have done more to prevent the Florida murders as if there were not enough agents to investigate Russian attacks on our democracy and domestic threats. He talks about mental health instead of his NRA masters as being the problem while he tries to take money away from health care.
What good is a wall when children cannot feel safe in school or grandma cannot go to church? He is not the first president to endure mass murders but when was the last time you heard President Obama or even President Bush being accused by teenagers for using their classmate’s death for his own personal benefit?
Dr. King was once asked why he risked his life and spent so much time away from his own families. He looked around and said, “For the children.”
Now there is another march planned in Washington by children not for civil rights but for their lives. I hope that the spirit of Dr. King will be there with them.
WASHINGTON — Education Secretary Betsy DeVos refused to say Wednesday whether she would block private schools that discriminate against LGBT students from receiving federal dollars, explaining that she believes states should have the flexibility to design voucher programs and that parents should be able to choose schools that best fit their children’s needs.
DeVos returned frequently to the theme of what she called a need for more local control in her first appearance before Congress since her rocky confirmation hearing in January.
Fielding questions from members of a House Appropriations subcommittee, she said that states should decide how to address chronic absenteeism, mental health issues and suicide risks among students and that states should also decide whether children taking vouchers are protected by federal special-education law.
Researchers have found that many states allow religious schools that receive taxpayer-funded vouchers to deny admission to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students or children with LGBT parents.
Asked by Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., whether she could think of any circumstance in which the federal government should step in to stop federal dollars from going to private schools that discriminate against certain groups of students, DeVos did not directly answer.
“We have to do something different than continuing a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach,” DeVos said.
Democrats immediately criticized DeVos’ philosophy, saying the nation’s top education official must be willing to defend children against discrimination by institutions that get federal money. “To take the federal government’s responsibility out of that is just appalling and sad,” said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.
DeVos pushed back against the notion that the Education Department would be abdicating its authority. “I am not in any way suggesting that students should not be protected,” she said.
DeVos traveled to Capitol Hill to defend a spending plan that has drawn criticism from both ends of the political spectrum.
President Donald Trump has proposed slashing $10.6 billion from federal education initiatives, including after-school programs, teacher training, and career and technical education, and reinvesting $1.4 billion of the savings into promoting his top education priority: school choice, including $250 million for vouchers to help students attend private and religious schools.
The administration is also seeking far-reaching changes to student aid programs, including the elimination of subsidized loans and public service loan forgiveness and a halving of the federal work-study program that helps college students earn money to support themselves while in school.
In her opening remarks Wednesday, DeVos said that while the size of the proposed cuts to K-12 and student financial programs “may sound alarming for some,” the president’s budget proposal reflects a push to return more decision-making power to states and more educational choice to parents.
“We cannot allow any parent to feel as if their child is trapped in a school that is not meeting their needs,” DeVos said.
Democrats predictably attacked the administration’s budget proposal as an effort to undermine public schools and low-income students’ ability to attend college.
“This budget reflects the views of an administration filled with people who frankly never had to worry about how they were going to pay for their children going to college,” said Rep. Nita Lowey, N.Y., the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. “And yet I’m most upset that this budget would undermine our public education system and the working families who depend on them.”
Several Republicans praised DeVos, particularly for her push to expand school choice.
“I’ve always made known my preference for giving parents the choice of where to send their students, because in the end the parents are the taxpayers. The parents are the ones who probably know best,” said Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md.
But GOP members also displayed their share of skepticism about the administration’s proposed cuts.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., chairman of the education subcommittee, questioned the proposal to dramatically cut college financial aid programs such as work-study and college-access programs for low-income students. “Frankly, I will advise you,” Cole said, “I have a different point of view.”
Another key Republican, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, N.J., chairman of the Appropriations Committee, emphasized that it is members of Congress and not the president who hold the power of the purse and will ultimately design the federal budget.
Declaring “awe” for special-education teachers’ hard work, Frelinghuysen also questioned whether the administration had proposed adequate funding for students with disabilities. DeVos seemed open to devoting more money, calling it a “matter for robust conversation.”
A 1975 federal special-education law promised that Congress would pay 40 percent of the cost of providing additional services to students with disabilities. Lawmakers have never come close and in 2017 are footing only about 15 percent of the cost. The Trump administration is proposing to hold funding at that level.
Critics said they are hopeful that Congress will reject many of Trump’s ideas, as lawmakers did this month when they reached a bipartisan deal to fund the government through September.
But even in that scenario, Trump’s proposal creates damaging uncertainty for school districts and students seeking to pay for college, said John King, who served as President Barack Obama’s education secretary and now helms the nonprofit group Education Trust.
“The administration has framed the conversation as a conversation about cuts rather than a conversation about investment,” King said. “We should be talking about investing more.”
While the administration’s proposed cuts have been embraced by fiscal conservatives who argue that Education Department programs need to be trimmed or eliminated, some conservatives are also troubled by the administration’s proposal to invest new money in school choice, saying that represents an unwelcome expansion of the federal footprint in education.
“As much as I want to see every single child in America have school choice, it is just not appropriate for the federal government to be using new dollars and new programs to push states in that direction,” said Lindsey Burke, an education policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “You need local buy-in for these school-choice options to really be supported and viable in the long run.”
Trump and DeVos are seeking to increase the federal investment in charter schools by 50 percent, bringing the total appropriation to $500 million per year. They also want to establish a new $250 million fund to expand and study private-school vouchers, and they want to dole out $1 billion in grants to school districts to adopt policies that allow tax dollars to follow students to the public school of their choice.
In a speech Monday night, DeVos called the push for school choice “right” and “just” and an opportunity to “drag American education out of the Stone Age and into the future.” She referred to her critics as “flat-earthers” and said that while the federal government would never force states to adopt choice-friendly policies, those who opt out are making a “terrible mistake.”
By Emma Brown, Danielle Douglas-Gabriel Copyright 2017, The Washington Post
On May 23, 2017, President Trump released the Administration’s FY2018 budget request to Congress which calls for a number of program eliminations within the U.S. Department of Education, a few of which would impact K-12 programs. For a number of programmatic changes that are proposed, the Administration is urging school districts and states to utilize existing Title I funding to address priority areas, such as those for effective teachers and leaders (Title II), tutoring, and extended day learning opportunities (Title IV). While the budget request calls for a record increase of $1 billion to Title I grants for disadvantaged students, the increase in funding would be targeted to school choice.
Please note that there may be discrepancies in budget documents, as some were prepared before the enactment of the FY2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act earlier this month. Therefore, when comparing final budget allocations with those proposed for FY2018, not all program levels may reflect the final enacted allocation. For example, the Appendix for the budget request shows Title II (Supporting effective instruction state grants) receiving funding, but the Major Savings and Reforms document confirms the program is deleted.
An analysis of the proposed budget follows:
Title I Grants for Disadvantaged Students: Overall funding for Title I grants would be increased by $334 million, compared to the current funding level of about $16.1 billion. The composition of Title I grants, however, would be changed to accommodate new “Furthering Options for Children to Unlock Success (FOCUS) grants to local educational agencies to implement weighted student funding formulas combined with open enrollment systems.”
School Choice: The new FOCUS grants would be funded at $1 billion to promote school choice and would represent a “down payment” on the President’s goal of investing $20 billion annually in public and private school choice. The proposed FOCUS grants would provide supplemental awards to school districts that agree to adopt weighted student funding combined with open enrollment systems that allow Federal, State, and local funds to follow students to the public school of their choice. According to Department budget documents, the proposal “would support LEAs in establishing or expanding student-centered systems that: (1) differentiate funding based on student characteristics, providing disadvantaged students more funding on a per-pupil basis than other students; (2) offer a range of viable school options and enable the Federal, State, and local funds to follow students to the public school of their choice; (3) make school performance and funding data easily accessible to parents; and (4) empower school leaders to use funds flexibly to address student and community needs. Under the Administration’s proposal, LEAs (including consortia of LEAs) that commit to developing and implementing these funding and open enrollment systems would be eligible for grants, which the Department would administer under the Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding (Flexibility) authority in Title I, Part E of the ESEA.”
Additionally, the Administration is proposing a $250 million increase for the Education Innovation and Research program to establish competitive awards for applicants to provide scholarships for students from low-income families to attend the private school of their choice and to build the evidence base around private school choice. The proposal includes an increase in charter school funding; $167 million for the Charter Schools program to strengthen significant State efforts to start new charter schools or expand and replicate existing high-performing charter schools. The program also provides up to $100 million to meet the growing demand for charter school facilities. The proposed increase in charter school funding brings the total charter school funding request to $500 million.
Special Education Grants to States: The Administration requests $11.9 billion for the Grants to States program (roughly level funding compared to Fiscal Year 2017) to assist States and schools in covering the costs of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities ages 3 through 21. The request would provide an average of $1,742 for each of the 6.8 million children with disabilities who are estimated to be served in 2018. The Federal contribution toward meeting the excess cost of special education and related services would be approximately 15 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE) under this request.
Level funding proposed for special education grants under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) would equate to a reduction nationwide. For example, the average federal share of funding per pupil in FY2017 was $1,777 and approximately 16 percent of APPE. The FY2018 proposal would represent a reduction averaging about $35 per pupil.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which provides the major source of federal funding to help school districts fund educational services to students with disabilities, the federal share of funding that Congress initially promised in 1975 is up to 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure. However, the 40 percent promise has not been fulfilled; and, the
federal share of special education funding would decline further under this request. Increasing the federal share of funding for special education is paramount, and should be addressed before considering future funding for newly created programs that may not have proven results for program effectiveness.
Impact Aid: The Administration is requesting roughly $1.2 billion for Impact Aid payment programs, including $1.16 billion for Basic Support Payments on behalf of federally connected children; $48.2 million for Payments for Children with Disabilities; $4.8 million for Facilities Maintenance for nine school facilities that originally were built to enable school districts and the U.S. Department of Defense to educate federally connected students; and, $17.4 million for competitive school construction grants to eligible districts for emergency repairs and modernization projects.
The Impact Aid program provides a vital source of support for 1,400 school districts across the nation that have a federal presence within their boundaries. These resources help districts provide educational services to students whose parents/guardians are enlisted in our Armed Forces, as well as those who reside on tribal trust lands.
The Administration has proposed the elimination of $68 million in Impact Aid federal properties payments to school districts, per the summary on page four. Along with the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools (NAFIS), NSBA opposes this proposed elimination.
Career and Technical Education (CTE): The Administration is requesting a reduction of approximately $166 million in Career and Technical Education State Grants (currently funded at about $950 million). According to the Department, the requested 15 percent reduction would “provide significant resources to support CTE programs while also maintaining the fiscal discipline necessary to support the President’s goal of increasing support for national security and public safety without adding to the Federal budget deficit.”
The request includes a $20 million increase for Career and Technical Education National Programs to promote the development, enhancement, implementation, or expansion of innovative CTE programs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).
As Congress moves forward in reauthorizing the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act through bipartisan legislation reported by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 17, NSBA urges Congress to sustain investments in CTE that support college and career readiness for our students through the integration of stronger academic components, facilitation of greater career pathways, and stronger public-private partnerships.
National School Lunch Program: The 2018 budget request would support approximately 5.4 billion lunches and snacks served to 31 million children in the National School Lunch Program. The total FY18 request for the National School Lunch Program is $13 billion, up from $12.4 billion in FY17. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the current maximum reimbursement rate for free and reduced priced school lunches is $3.39 and $2.99 respectively.
School-based Medicaid: Proposed cuts to Medicaid are around $610 billion over 10 years. (This is separate from proposed cuts in the American Health Care Act [AHCA], which includes $839 billion in Medicaid cuts.) Combined, those Medicaid cuts would result in slashing the program by an astonishing $1.5 trillion over a decade.
Medicaid is a cost-effective and efficient provider of essential health care services for children. School-based Medicaid programs serve as a lifeline to children who can’t access critical health care and health services outside of their schools. Under this bill, the bulk of the mandated costs of providing health care coverage would be shifted to the States, even though health needs and costs of care for children will remain the same or increase. Most analyses of the budget request, as well as ACHA, project that the Medicaid funding shortfall in support of these mandated services will increase, placing states at greater risk year after year. The proposed federal disinvestment in Medicaid could force States and local communities to increase taxes and reduce or eliminate various programs and services, including other non-Medicaid services. The unintended consequences could force states to cut eligibility, services, and benefits for children, which impact school readiness and student achievement.
Programs proposed for elimination in FY2018
The Administration has proposed the elimination of 21st Century Community Learning Centers ($1.164 billion), stating that, “While limited evaluation and survey data from certain States and individual centers highlights benefits from participation, such as improved behavior and classroom grades, overall program performance data show that the 21st CCLC is not achieving its goal of helping students, particularly those who attend low-performing schools, meet challenging State academic standards. For example, on average from 2013 to 2015, less than 20 percent of program participants improved from not proficient to proficient or above on State assessments in reading and mathematics.” The budget request also suggests that, “the provision of before- and after-school academic enrichment opportunities may be better supported with other Federal, State, local or private funds, including the $15 billion Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program.”
Along with the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools (NAFIS), NSBA asserts that Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property must be maintained for the benefit of all students in these districts. Cuts would cause financial harm as Impact Aid supports personnel and professional development, academic materials, transportation, technology, and other general operating expenses. Elimination of this funding stream would be a reversal on a 68-year commitment to federally impacted communities.
The budget request to Congress proposes eliminating Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property ($68 million). These payments compensate school districts for the presence of non-taxable federal properties within their boundaries. The Administration contends that this program is not applicable to the presence of federally-connected students (such as those whose parents/guardians are enlisted in the Armed Forces), and therefore does not necessarily support the education of federally-connected students.
Under the budget request, the new Title IV Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants program ($400 million) that was authorized under the Every Student Succeeds Act would be eliminated. The grant program was authorized to help support activities that provide students with a well-rounded education, ensure safe and supportive learning environments, and use technology to improve instruction. Under this new grant program, four previously authorized programs were consolidated: Mathematics and Science Partnerships, Advanced Placement, Elementary and Secondary School Counseling, and Physical Education. The Administration contends that any subgrants that would be awarded “would result in award amounts of less than $30,000 for the vast majority of school districts. The Administration does not believe limited Federal resources should be allocated to a program where many of its grants will likely be too small to have a meaningful impact.”
The budget request would eliminate Title II Supporting Effective Instruction (SEI) State Grants ($2.3 billion). Under ESSA, Title II programs for “Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High-Quality Teachers, Principals, or Other School Leaders” support class-size reduction initiatives, professional development and in-service training for teachers, technology integration into curricula, training on data usage to improve student achievement and student data privacy, parental/community engagement, development of STEM master teacher corps, civics, and implementation of performance-based compensation systems. In its explanatory statement, the Administration states that, “While the SEI State Grants program authorizes a wide range of activities, in school year 2015-2016, 52 percent of funds were used for professional development (PD) and 25 percent were used for class-size reduction. An LEA that identifies either activity as a key strategy for responding to a comprehensive needs assessment may use Title I, Part A funds for the same purpose.” With ESSA implementation efforts underway that emphasize the role of effective teachers, principals and school leaders, the loss of Title II investments could impact state and local efforts to develop tools and incentives focused on strengthening instruction, improving student academic outcomes, and retaining effective educators, especially for schools in underserved communities.
President Trump released his proposed FY18 Budget. Sadly, this proposal eliminates several important Federal education programs. Of particular interest to state digital learning leaders is the elimination of the Student Support and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) Grants, also known as Title IVa of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The SSAE Grant program focuses on Whole Child Education, Safe and Healthy Students, and the Effective Use of Technology. When ESSA was authorized, Title IVa was authorized at $1.65 billion. However, for FY 17 only $400 million was budgeted. This limited funding model would mean that many school districts would receive very little or no funds at all unless a state awards the funds via block grants to enable a few districts to use the funds for meaningful work. The FY17 funding level is the rationale used by the President to justify elimination of the grant program.
“Learning in the 21st Century means leveraging digital content, tools, and applications to best meet each student’s needs. However, teachers need to understand how to effectively harness these resources to maximize student learning,” notes Tracy Weeks, Executive Director of SETDA. “This budget takes away a vital funding source for schools, districts, and states.”
SETDA calls on Congress not only to continue to fund Title IVa, but to fund it at its fully authorized level of $1.6 Billion.
Proponents of school choice in Pennsylvania are about the only ones cheering about President Trump’s education budget proposal that slashes overall funding by $9.2 billion but includes an unprecedented federal investment in opening doors to alternatives to traditional public schools.
Title II, the $2 billion grant program for teacher development, will likely remain intact for fiscal year 2018, despite President Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate the program entirely.
Dear Editor:
