Download AASA Legislative Advocacy Overview Elementary and Secondary

AASA Legislative Advocacy Overview
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
 AASA urges the Department to exercise its authority to provide school districts across
the nation with direct, targeted regulatory relief before the start of the 2011-12 school
year. Specifically, we advocate for a freezing of sanctions at the 2010-11 school year
level. We oppose any conditional waivers or forcing schools to adopt education reform
policies in exchange for regulatory relief.
 AASA strongly supports ongoing efforts to reauthorize ESEA. Complete reauthorization
is the best way to fully address the areas of the legislation that need improvement.
 AASA believes that improvement of ESEA requires an accountability system that is
transparent; uses multiple sources of evidence and a growth measure; is fair to all
students; and calls for federal authority that is commensurate with federal funding.
AASA supports support a differentiated federal accountability system that is focused on
useful interventions with strong LEA involvement and linked to the amount of federal
assistance a school is receiving.
 AASA supports the use of formative assessments to inform instruction and provide
timely and instructionally useful information to teachers and principals to directly
improve student achievement.
 AASA support HR 2445, the State and Local Funding Flexibility Act.
 AASA endorses the Formula Fairness Campaign and supports the All Children Are
Equal (ACE) Act, both of which advocate for distributing all Title I dollars to LEAs
based on the concentration of students in poverty.
IDEA
 AASA advocates for full funding of IDEA and urges Congress to meet its chronically
underfunded commitment to provide 40 percent of the additional costs associated with
educating children with special needs.
 AASA supports a legislative fix that would allow LEAs to seek a direct waiver from the
Department of Education to reduce their maintenance of effort for special education
and related services due to “exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances.”
Budget & Appropriations
 AASA believes that federal FY12 appropriations levels should safeguard education
programs and recognize education as the investment that it is. While all programs
should have some ‘skin in the game’ in tight economic times, education has a proven
return on investment and is a key step toward building a competitive workforce.
 AASA puts funding priority on existing federal commitments that drive dollars to all
schools, especially Title I and IDEA. AASA opposes funding of new competitive grants
and believes that dollars proposed for Race to the Top, School Improvement Grants and
Investing in Innovation should instead be directed to programs that serve all schools,
instead of those who have the capacity to apply.
 AASA opposes absolute spending caps. An absolute spending cap overlooks the realities
of ever-growing programs like Medicare and Social Security. Even if growth is somehow
slowed, there is still growth, leaving an ever-smaller slice for discretionary programs
(like education). The last time federal spending met the proposed spending cap levels
was in 1966, before ESEA, IDEA, Medicaid and Medicare.

Other Priorities
 AASA supports reauthorization of the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)
and the creation of an Office of Rural Education Policy within the Department of
Education.
 AASA supports continued and proper investment in education technology, including
raising the cap on E-Rate and opposing any effort to zero-fund or eliminate the
Enhancing Education Technology Program.
 AASA is committed to providing a safe and healthy school climate where are students
feel safe and able to learn. AASA supports bullying policies that provide federal
funding and supports so schools can implement effective, evidence-based, school-wide
bullying prevention programs. AASA opposes policies that give school districts more
unfunded mandates by requiring both the collection and dissemination of numerous
data points on the frequency and type of bullying and harassment that occurs in
schools.
ESEA Reauthorization
As has been the case for the last two years, while there is consensus that NCLB
needs revision, there is not consensus about what revisions should be made or how
reauthorization should proceed. While both chambers have made progress in terms of
bipartisan discussions and held hearings, the House and Senate are taking very different
approaches to reauthorization. The Senate remains committed to a complete reauthorization,
though the initial timeline of Memorial Day has been adjusted several times, and the latest
projection is for language before the August recess. The big question at this point is how
‘comprehensive’ the Senate proposal will be; it is becoming increasingly likely that the initial
bill will be more of a skeleton and many of the discussions and hot topics will be addressed
through amendments. Amendments beg further questions: What items are included in the
amendments? How much support do they have—are they agreed to and how bipartisan is the
support?
The House has moved forward with its piecemeal approach. Under the leadership of Chairman
Kline (R-MN), the House Education and the Workforce Committee effort on ESEA mirrors the
House-wide sentiment of a smaller role in government. Instead of one large, comprehensive
bill, Mr. Kline is moving ESEA in pieces. To date, three pieces have been introduced to, and
two passed out of, committee.
The House Committee passed HR 1891, a proposal that would eliminate 42 programs was
ESEA, under the guise of streamlining programs and reducing both redundancy and the role
of government. AASA did not weigh in on the bill, but was concerned by at least two of the
programs that would be eliminated: Enhancing Education Through Technology (E2T2 or Title
II Part D) and the Safe and Drug Free Schools program. The House Committee also passed
HR 2218, a bill that makes changes to the charter school provisions within ESEA. AASA
opposed the bill, in large part due to the varying treatment the bill would provide to charter
schools.
AASA supports public school choice and charter schools that operate under the governance of
local public school boards. We believe that there should be a level playing field, including nondiscriminatory and unconditional enrollment for all children. Further, the same regulations
and accountability should apply to all schools receiving public funding. The manner in which
charter schools are financed must be addressed so that their creation does not have an adverse
effect on the quality of existing public schools. HR 2218 would afford charter schools
flexibilities not available to traditional public schools while imposing a lower level of
accountability and transparency in evaluating charter school effectiveness. AASA opposed the
legislation at the time of the vote, and hopes for legislative fixes before the bill goes to the full
floor.
The third piece (HR 2445) is the State and Local Funding Flexibility Act. Under this proposal,
LEAs would have total flexibility to move dollars within and between most programs and
titles within ESEA. Money would flow from the federal government to the states and locals as
it currently does. SEAs would have the same level of flexibility but only for the federal funds
that normally reside at the state level. All funding that would normally go to the local level
would flow to the LEA untouched, and all decisions as to how an LEA’s share of ESEA dollars
are allocated would be made at the local level. Further, LEAs would be able to move ESEA
dollars into Section 613f of IDEA (early intervening services). Reporting requirements stay in
place for all titles, providing the accountability necessary for prudent state/federal oversight.
AASA supports this piece of legislation. Looking to the fall, it is anticipated that the House
will also move ESEA pieces related to quality teachers and accountability.
ESEA has been in the process of being reauthorized for more than three years. In
that time, many education groups argued that ESEA should be refocused, reframed
and renamed to supplement the improvement of educational outcomes for low
income and minority students:
Key Issues in Reauthorization
 Accountability: AASA and nearly all other education groups agree that improvement
of ESEA requires an accountability system that is transparent; uses multiple sources of
evidence and a growth measure; is fair to all students; and calls for federal authority
that is commensurate with federal funding. AASA strongly supports continued
disaggregation among all subgroups. Some civil rights groups and disability groups
strongly support the current accountability language.

Standards: The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA required states to establish content and
performance standards as a condition of receiving funds from Title I of ESEA. NCLB
reinforced and strengthened the requirements in Reading and Language Arts and
Math. There is a consensus that the state standards need to be fewer, clearer and more
rigorous. The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School
Officers have created a new set of core standards that are internationally benchmarked
and fewer and clearer and more than 40 states have agreed to implement the core
standards. AASA urges that the new standards not be made federal in this
reauthorization.

Assessment: Most scholars and educators and their organizations, including AASA,
would like to move beyond the current generation of once a year tests that are a snap
shot in time and scores are not reported until a student is in the next grade level.
Instead AASA would support the use of formative assessments to encourage the use of
assessments to directly improve student achievement.

Special Learners: AASA agrees with the majority of educators that the progress of
special education students would be more accurately measured using multiple
measures including tests developed for students with disabilities, and that the progress
of English language learners should be measured in a language they understand, with
appropriate assessments based on proficiency level.

Teachers: AASA believes that states should define highly qualified teachers and
should provide incentives for special education and for general education teachers in
hard to staff urban schools and in rural isolated schools. AASA supports the notion of
federal funding to supplement teacher’s salaries in hard to staff schools. We urge
Congress to utilize the collective experience of districts, consortia of districts, and
education service agencies when it comes to training prospective teachers and providing
high quality professional development.

Serving the total child: A clear consensus among the education groups and human
service groups is a new emphasis on addressing the non-school factors that are barriers
to academic success. AASA is supportive of these efforts given the wide range of
programs that they run to meet the needs of the total child.

Early Childhood Education: Support for children in their first five years of life,
including social intervention and full funding for and alignment of Head Start to public
education are widely supported ideas. The Obama administration has strongly
supported state efforts to increase access to and the quality of early childhood
programs, including the Early Childhood Challenge grants, a program to assist states
with early childhood efforts.

Health: The health programs that are in other agencies are not well tied to the
development and well being that contribute to the educational progress of low-income
students.
The needed services and supports include continued Medicaid
reimbursements for school-based administrative and transportation claims; a health
care system focused on low-income families, including prenatal care and school-based,
school-linked and community health clinics; and federal funding and access to mental
health care and dental care.

Formula vs. Competitive: The Administration, through both its Blueprint for
Reauthorization and FY11 and FY12 Budget Proposals, proposed a significant change
in policy, with a notable increase in the proportion of federal dollars that would move to
school districts through competitive grants, not formula programs. Competitive grants
put certain districts—especially small, rural districts, those lacking the administrative
capacity, and/or ESAs who may not be included in the state definition of LEA and may
therefore not be eligible to compete—at a disadvantage for securing funds.
Regulatory Relief: Though the administration and Congress continue to stress the
importance of complete reauthorization, the political likelihood of reauthorization prior to the
2011-12 school year is slim to none. Given that more than 80 percent of the nation’s schools
will be labeled as ‘failing’ in the 2011-12 school year, there is recognition that something
needs to be done to provide the nation’s schools some sort of relief from current law’s broken
accountability system. AASA has long referenced that some form of regulatory relief could
help alleviate this pressure, though the position has been meet with claims that the relief
would take the pressure off of reauthorization. AASA joined forces with the National School
Boards Association to issue a joint resolution calling for direct, targeted regulatory relief (not
conditional waivers) that would freeze AYP sanctions at 2010-11 school year levels. Freezing
sanctions maintains a level of accountability while avoiding the calamity of pushing the
number of schools labeled as ‘failing’ over 80 percent. The resolution was met with strong,
wide spread support, with more than 1,100 individuals from all 50 states signing on.
The push for direct regulatory relief is even more important, given the administration’s
interest in providing relief, but only in exchange for schools adopting their education reform
policy priorities. AASA is strongly concerned by the conditional, quid-pro-quo nature of these
waivers, especially since the reforms would come without any additional funding. Further, the
two issues at hand are reauthorization and regulatory relief. The policy priorities being
pushed by the administration have a place within the discussions of reauthorization, and
pushing them to LEAs through the waivers sidesteps the very important democratic process of
reauthorization. Even more importantly, much of the burden from current law stems from
current regulations, meaning that relief is as simple as revising or repealing certain
regulations, not further complicating the situation with waivers.
Talking Points:
1. Ask your Representatives and Senators to support a new framework for the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that focuses the federal
role on students in poverty.
2. Urge your members to support strengthening the connection between high poverty schools
and federal programs providing health and mental health care for children and their
families, quality services from ages zero to five and extended learning opportunities.
3. Ask your members of Congress to support efforts to improve the assessments used by the
states and encourage the use of formative assessments that inform instruction and provide
timely and instructionally useful information to teachers and principals to directly improve
student achievement.
4. Urge your member to support a differentiated federal accountability system that is focused
on useful interventions with strong LEA involvement and linked to the amount of federal
assistance a school is receiving.
5. Urge your member to remember the important role of districts and ESAs in professional
development for teachers and in wrap around services for children and their families.
6. Urge your Senators and Representatives to support targeted, direct regulatory relief—not
conditional waivers—for school districts for the 2011-12 school year.
Title I Formula Fairness
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) distributes funding to local
education agencies (LEAs) to improve the achievement of disadvantaged students. In order to
allocate more funding per Title I student to LEAs with higher concentrations of poverty, the
current formula weighs the count of eligible students in an LEA. The current weighting
system, however, has the unintended perverse effect of diverting funding from higher-poverty
LEAs to lower-poverty LEAs, regardless of actual poverty rates. This misallocation stems from
the use of two alternative weighting systems. One is based on the percentage of disadvantaged
students (“percentage weighting”) and one on the sheer number of disadvantaged students
(“number weighting”). Each LEA’s eligible student account is weighted through both scales,
and the LEA receives an allocation based on which scale provides the most benefit.
Number weighting gives a big boost in student count to a large LEA even if it has a low
percentage of poverty while small LEAs, even with higher poverty rates, get no benefit from
number weighting. Since the Title I formula distributes a fixed appropriation, all funds gained
by LEAs that benefit from number weighting are at the direct expense of those LEAs that do
not. As a result, all small and moderate sized LEAs with high poverty rates receive far less
than they would if all Title I dollars were distributed to LEAs based on the concentration of
students in poverty (percentage weighting). Some of the highest poverty LEAs are
disadvantaged so much by number weighting that they receive less than if there were no
weighting system at all. This reality runs counter to Congressional intent and negates the fact
that poverty is poverty and all children should be treated equally under the law.
The Rural School and Community Trust is leading the charge on this issue, with the Formula
Fairness Campaign (www.formulafairness.com). AASA has endorsed the campaign and
actively advocates for a resolution on Capitol Hill. To that end, the House has introduced
legislation that addresses this formula flaw. The All Children Are Equal (ACE) Act would
gradually phase out the number weighting system while leaving percentage weighting in
place. By reducing the weight factors in the number weighting system by 10 percent per year
over four years, the formula becomes balanced and accurately reflects Congressional intent to
allocate funding to LEAs with higher concentrations of poverty. Large LEAs with high
concentrations of poverty would still benefit from percentage weighting, as would all smaller
LEAs with higher percentages of poverty. Correcting this injustice should be a priority and is
a simple issue of fairness and equity for all Title I-eligible children.
The ACE Act was introduced earlier this week by Rep. Thompson (CA) and Rep. Hinojosa
(TX). They were joined by Reps. Slaughter (NY), Butterfield (NC), Plats (PA), and Boren (OK).
In fact, additional sponsors will have signed on by the time you read this.
Talking Points:
1. Urge your Representative to support the ACE Act.
2. Encourage your Representatives and Senators to support changes that would distribute
all Title I dollars in a manner consistent with original Congressional intent: based on
concentration of poverty.
Appropriations/Funding
The upcoming school year finds schools facing a continued perfect fiscal storm. The
combination of no more ARRA dollars, the cessation of EduJobs funds, the continued recession
at the state and local level, and actual and anticipated cuts in federal FY11 and FY12 dollars
means continued economic hardship for schools across the nation.
FY 12 Appropriations: The FY12 budget (2012-13 school year) proposal from the
administration is worrisome. Released earlier this year, education is a highlight in an
otherwise austere federal budget proposal. The proposed increases aside, however, almost
every new dollar is in competitive grants instead of formula programs. A proposed $300
million increase in Title I would be for awards (begging the question of who is being rewarded,
and for what). IDEA would receive an additional $200 million, but that is actually a decrease
in the federal share of funding IDEA, dropping Congressional effort to a mere 17 percent of
the promised 40.
As for the appropriations process, it can best be summed up as ‘on hold’ and ‘depressing’.
Congress is more focused, at this point, on the balanced budget and debt ceiling conversations
than in moving appropriations bills. Further details, on either the House or Senate side, are
few and far between. Regardless, it is hard to find a scenario where schools are not
significantly cut. On the House side, the only numbers available are top-line funding levels,
and from that we can see that LHHS is among then hardest hit appropriations. The
anticipated cuts for FY12 will make FY11 look like a walk in the park, especially when we
consider that the painful cuts in 2011 were the low-hanging fruit. The FY12 allocation for
LHHS is $18 billion (11.6%) below FY11 levels, $7 billion below HR 1, 3.9% below FY08 levels,
and roughly equal to FY04 funding. While Senate efforts are likely to include less severe
budget cuts, it is extremely difficult to anticipate a final FY12 appropriation that doesn’t
include significant cuts to education.
Serious work and discussion on FY12 appropriations is limited by Congressional focus on
discussion of a balanced budget and raising the debt ceiling.
Debt Ceiling: Conversations about raising the debt ceiling continue. There is an August 2
deadline. The debt ceiling needs to be raised. As a point of reference, if the ceiling were not to
be raised and the nation had to start paying down its debt, after a few months of covering
payments, the priority use of federal funds would be to cover the debt payments. What does a
debt payment look like? The US Department of Education’s annual budget is $60 billion
dollars. In context, the monthly debt payment—monthly—would be $125 billion. At this point,
it is not a question of whether the debt ceiling will be raised (it’s been described as ‘a
necessary evil and you hope your party is in the minority when the decision has to be made’)
but more a conversation of what policy priorities/demands will be tied on to the vote, including
cuts to programs like Medicaid. Conversations are ongoing and have features groups like The
Gang of Six or the Biden Discussions, and the latter gave way to discussions with President
Obama himself. The major sticking point is a debate over the inclusion of (and balance
between) revenues and spending cuts, with Republicans interested in only spending cuts and
no new revenue, and Democrats supporting some form of new revenue (taxes).

Balanced Budget: Last month, the House passed HJRes 1, a proposed constitutional
amendment that would not only call for a balanced federal budget as soon as FY18, but would
also cap federal expenditures at 18% of GDP and require a supermajority for any vote to
increase taxed. While individually there is room for consideration for each of these proposals,
collectively they are extremely short-sighted policy and have draconian implications for longterm budgeting and discretionary spending in particular. There are a host of reasons these
proposals are problematic:
o
o
o
o
o
The last time overall spending was 18 percent of GDP was back in 1966, predating ESEA, IDEA, Medicaid and Medicare.
An absolute spending cap overlooks the realities of ever-growing programs like
Medicare and Social Security. Even if growth is somehow slowed, there is still
growth, leaving an ever-smaller slice for discretionary programs (like education).
A proposal of this magnitude makes the House HR 1 budget proposal from this
February look like a walk in the park.
Requiring a balanced budget, no matter how the economy was performing, would
force policymakers to cut spending and/or raise taxes just when the economy is
weak or in recession--the exact opposite of good economic policy.
The requirements of a 2/3 vote to raise taxes and limiting spending to 18 percent
of GDP would prevent policymakers from closing even the most outrageous tax
loop holes.
Talking Points:
7. Urge your Senators and Representative to support increased investment to Congress’
outstanding commitments to underserved populations through Title I and IDEA. Many of
the reform and innovation ideas the Administration pushes through competitive funding
can be accomplished through existing statute. Changes to ESEA within reauthorization, as
well as increased flexibility at the local level, will allow all districts—not just those
winning a funding competition—to implement long-term, systemic changes.
8. Urge both your House and your Senate members to continue their investment in public
education by rejecting efforts to level fund IDEA funding and instead providing an increase
of $1 billion. This would enable education service agencies to maximize the use of the
IDEA funding by allowing the funding certainty that will allow them to hire special
education staff. It will allow Congress to build on its historic increase and live up to its
promise to fully fund IDEA.
9. Remind your Senators and Representatives that not every dollar in the federal budget is
equal: just as a dollar invested in education garners more than a dollar in return, a dollar
cut from education is more than a dollar lost. Education is an investment, and
Congressional effort should reflect this priority.
10. Encourage your Senators and Representatives to steer any additional education dollars
toward existing federal formula programs, instead of competitive grants, in any
appropriations bill, whether a CR, omnibus, or regular appropriation.
11. Explain to your House and Senate members that the current proposals for balanced
budgets have significant implications for education funding, and are short-sighted policy
that will stymie the flexibility necessary for proper federal education funding.
IDEA Full Funding
In 1975, our country took a major step forward in promoting the inclusion and equality of one
of our most disenfranchised groups of citizens. Passage of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, assured that all
children with disabilities would receive a free, appropriate public education. Millions of
children with disabilities are no longer limited by their families’ ability to afford private
education, forced to attend costly state institutions, or worse, forced to stay home and miss out
entirely on the benefits of an education. IDEA ensures that children with disabilities may
attend public schools alongside their peers.
Despite all that has been accomplished on behalf of children with disabilities, much more
remains to be done. When IDEA passed in 1975, Congress understood that it was creating a
law that would have increased financial impact at the state and local level. It promised to pay
a significant share (40 percent) of the excess costs of educating a child with a disability
compared to a general education student. In the 1997 reauthorization the 40 percent of excess
cost was changed to 40 percent of the National Average per Pupil Expenditure for every child
enrolled in special education.
Funding the federal, state and local partnership to provide an equal educational opportunity
for all students has not worked very well from the local district perspective. While special
education funding has received significant increases in the last decade, funding has leveled off
and even been cut in recent years. The one-time infusion of ARRA funding has expired, and
IDEA funding within the FY11 appropriations process was subject to a 0.2 percent cut, putting
IDEA funding at a mere 16.5% of the authorized 40 percent. While all members of Congress
are committed to the idea of fulfilling their 40 percent commitment, it is clear that we will
never reach it through the current appropriations process. AASA supports efforts to fully fund
IDEA through mandatory funding.
The FY12 funding proposal for IDEA includes a $200 million increase. This is less than the
$250 million increase proposed in FY11 and is, for all intents and purposes, a proposal for
level funding because it leaves Congressional effort hovering below 17 percent of the
authorized 40.
We are working to have a full-funding bill introduced in both the House and Senate.
Conversations are being led by Senator Harkin and Representative VanHollen. Senator
Harkin’s bill is expected this week, and we hope to have the House bill introduced before the
August recess. Urge your members to continue the increased investment in IDEA that begun
under ARRA.
Talking Points:
12. Share the impact that the special education shortfall has on your district including the
encroachment on your general education budget. Explain to your members of Congress the
financial relief that would come at the local level when Congress fully funds its share.
13. Urge your Senators and Representatives to safeguard IDEA funding in the FY12
appropriations process and to invest as much money as possible. Reiterate the importance
of IDEA and its pressures on your local budgets, and urge them to oppose any effort to
further reduce federal effort in the chronically under-funded program.
IDEA Maintenance of Effort Waiver
Under current IDEA statute, LEAs must maintain the same level of funding each year for
special education and related services to children with disabilities regardless of how much
funding they receive from the state during the fiscal year. As state budgets continue to shrink,
and local property and revenue taxes continue to decline, school districts are becoming less
capable of maintaining the same level of funding for special education and related services.
However, current IDEA law asserts that when a district fails to maintain effort in a given fiscal
year, the district must repay the amount by which the district fell short. In light of these
economic circumstances, AASA believes that more flexibility must be given to local districts so
that they can reduce their level of special education funding during these tough economic
circumstances without penalty.
While there are specific exceptions in the statute that allow LEAs to reduce their levels of
special-education funding, such as a decrease in enrollment of children with disabilities or the
voluntary departure of special education or related service personnel, states have considerably
more flexibility. Specifically, an SEA can apply directly to the Department of Education for a
waiver that would allow them to reduce their special education funding due to “exceptional or
uncontrollable circumstances such as precipitous and unforeseen decline in the financial
resources of the state.” Despite reducing their spending, a state must continue to ensure that a
free appropriate public education (FAPE) is made available to all children with disabilities
residing in that state.
In light of the fact that at least 42 states and the District of Columbia have projected shortfalls
for fiscal year 2012 totaling $103 billion, with 24 states projecting shortfalls totaling $46 billion
for fiscal year 2013, AASA proposes a legislative fix that would allow LEAs to seek a
direct waiver from the SEA to reduce their maintenance of effort for special education
and related services due to “exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances.”
Talking Points
1. Tell your Representative or Senator that school districts need additional flexibility during
these tough fiscal times and that legislative language that would enable local school districts to
directly apply for a waiver to reduce special education funding is critical.
2. AASA conducted a poll in June that found 10% of districts are sure that they will not be able
to maintain current levels of funding for special education this year, and 13% of districts already
know they will not be able to maintain spending next year.
3. The burden of state spending on special education cannot be covered by local revenues unless
there is a corresponding increase in local revenue. Since no increase in local revenue is expected
this year, LEAs will be penalized for their inability to cover the state shortfalls due to no fault of
their own.
E-Rate & Educational Technology
The Telecommunications Act is in a holding pattern when it comes to reauthorization. Full
reauthorization is critical for schools because it would mean a reauthorization of the Universal
Service Fund and E-Rate. While we should be in good shape in this Congress, political
realities (including the debt ceiling and balanced budget debates) are tying up most major
bills, and this is on top of a Senate that has had difficulty moving much of anything. That said,
Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), the co-creator of the E-Rate, is now chairman of the
Commerce Committee. This puts us in a great position to achieve our wish list of changes.
Most notably, AASA will be asking Congress to remove the $2.25 billion cap on E-Rate funding
and ensure that the E-Rate discounts meet demand. This will provide service agencies with
greater ability to maximize their local dollars to meet their technology needs, especially with
the increasing focus on broadband access.
The Anti- Deficiency Act (ADA) requires that the Universal Service Administrative Company
(USAC,) which oversees the E-Rate program, has enough money in the bank to fully pay
funding commitments before it sends out the E-Rate commitment letters. Because Universal
Service funding is collected from the telephone companies four times a year, they’ve never had
– nor have they needed – sufficient funds to pay all the outstanding funding commitments in
the bank at any given time. When E-Rate was forced to comply with ADA almost five years
ago, it froze operation of the program from August until December in 2004, when a one-year
waiver was approved by Congress. Since then we have been operating under a series of one
year waivers. Without the certainty of E-Rate funding, school district budgets could get a lot
tighter, making it difficult to keep up with newer technologies.
Therefore, we are asking for cosponsors. S 297, the Senate bill, would provide a permanent
exemption from the ADA for the Universal Service Fund, including E-Rate. There is not a
House companion at this time. We need as many cosponsors as possible on this legislation.
Unless the education community creates enough pressure, there is no guarantee that we will
get the needed waivers.
Finally, we need to support efforts to simplify the application process. The first proposal
would be to create a shortened application for school districts applying only for Priority One
services. This would hopefully ease the application crunch for the program that benefits the
most school districts. Secondly, there is a proposal under consideration that allows for a single
3 year application for recurring services.
This would reduce paperwork for school districts
applying for yearly telephone and internet discounts.
Funding for educational technology is under fire. The President’s proposals for both FY11 and
FY12 zeroed out funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (Title II
Part D). The program received zero funding in the final FY11 appropriations, and is included
in the list of ESEA programs slated for elimination in reauthorization (HR 1891). Eliminating
both funding and the program itself at the same time that school districts need to be providing
a cutting edge education to make student globally competitive is both counterintuitive and
short-sighted. To that end, Senator Bingaman introduced the Achievement Through
Technology and Innovation (ATTAIN) Act. S 1178 allows for an EETT-type program. AASA
endorses this legislation, and opposes any effort to reduce/eliminate funding for education
technology.

Talking Points:
14. Talk to your Representatives and Senators about the importance of the E-Rate program
and how much more you could accomplish if there was no longer a limitation on E-Rate
funding to $2.25 billion. Ask them to support any efforts to increase the E-Rate funding to
meet the yearly demand.
15. Urge your Senators to cosponsor S 297, which would permanently exempt the Universal
Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act. This exemption would provide the needed
assurance to local school districts that E-Rate funding would not, once again, be disrupted.
16. Urge your Senators to support S 1178, which would protect and maintain a dedicated
education technology program within ESEA. Dedicated, sustained investment in education
technology supports state and local efforts already underway to expand access to rigorous
courses through online learning, to use education data to guide instruction and decision
making, and to support teachers and administrators in implementing newly adopted
college and career ready standards and assessments are all at grave risk.
Bullying & Harassment
Bullying and harassment prevention continue to be a hot topic both on and off Capitol
Hill. There is broad, bipartisan support for action on bullying prevention in schools, and it
has taken on several different forms. AASA is a strong advocate for a safe learning and
work environment for all students and staff, and supports proactive efforts that work to
educate and provide training to prevent bullying before it happens. While AASA does not
take a stand on whether a student’s sexual orientation or gender should be protected
categories under law, we are committed to providing a safe and healthy school climate
where are students feel safe and able to learn.
AASA recognizes the important role that schools can play in helping raise awareness
around bullying and harassment. The bullying behaviors in schools parallel those of the
larger society, and AASA is concerned by the trend of putting much of the responsibility
for addressing bullying on the shoulders of schools. AASA questions the wisdom of
Congress in involving itself in school bullying prevention and policies when the states and
districts are putting policies in place. To date, forty-six states have laws directing school
districts on how they should reduce and prevent bullying and harassment and some states
have their own definitions of bullying and harassment that schools must use in their
bullying policies as well. A federal definition of bullying and its policies in light of the
growth of state policies and mandates around bullying will only create more confusion for
school districts. AASA supports federal policy that supports reinforcement of already
existing state and local bullying policy, and urges federal policymakers to shift away from
the current focus on enumeration and a ‘gotcha’ mentality to a pro-active and preventative
approach.
Many of the proposals featured below, while well-intentioned, are focused on identifying
incidents and doling out consequences, and AASA advocates instead for an earlier
intervention that avoids both the bullying and consequences. Here are some key bills and
actions to be aware of:
The Safe Schools Improvement Act (S.506/H.R.1468) would amend ESEA to require LEAs
to (1) include clear prohibitions against bullying and harassment within their discipline
policies; (2) establish and monitor performance indicators for incidents of bullying and
harassment; and (3) establish grievance procedures students, parents, and educators can
use to redress such conduct. SSIA would also direct LEAs to notify parents, students, and
educators annually on: (1) the bullying and harassment prohibited by their discipline
policies, (2) the numbers and nature of bullying and harassment incidents for each of their
schools, and (3) grievance procedures for redressing such conduct. No additional federal
funding would be available to schools to comply with these new requirements.
The Student Non-Discrimination Act (S.3390/H.R. 4530) prohibits public school students
from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any
federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual
orientation or gender identity or that of their associates. The SNDA is closely modeled
after title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which prohibits discrimination on the
basis of sex and provides legal recourse to redress such discrimination. SNDA considers
harassment to be a form of discrimination and allows an aggrieved individual to take legal
action against the school district and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they
prevail. It also allows the federal government to deny school districts federal funds if they
are found to be in violation of any part of the legislation. The Senate SNDA bill is
sponsored by Al Franken (D-MN) and every Democrat on the Senate HELP Committee
has also signed on as a co-sponsor.
Talking Points
1. Urge your Senators and Representatives to support policies that provide federal
funding and supports so schools can implement effective, evidence-based, school-wide
bullying prevention programs.
2. Urge your Senators and Representatives to oppose policies that give school districts
more unfunded mandates by requiring both the collection and dissemination of
numerous data points on the frequency and type of bullying and harassment that
occurs in schools.
3. Urge your Senators to oppose any legislation that grants individual students a private
right of action. Private right to action against a school system creates new costs and
administrative structures and is a slower path to preventing bullying than support to
teachers and administrators.