Oaasfep april 2014 latest developments in washington
1 / 52

OAASFEP April 2014 Latest Developments in Washington - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

OAASFEP April 2014 Latest Developments in Washington. Leigh Manasevit, Esq. [email protected] Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC www.bruman.com. Federal Legislative Update . Agenda. State of Congress Federal Funding Policy Legislation & ESEA Waivers Some Miscellaneous Agency Rules

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' OAASFEP April 2014 Latest Developments in Washington' - sarila

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Oaasfep april 2014 latest developments in washington

OAASFEPApril 2014Latest Developments in Washington

Leigh Manasevit, Esq.

[email protected]

Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC



State of Congress

Federal Funding

Policy Legislation & ESEA Waivers

Some Miscellaneous Agency Rules

Omni Circular

Congressional approval
Congressional Approval

  • <

Source: PPP Poll, October 2013

What does this mean to congress
What does this mean to Congress?

  • Political angling on rareissues that are seeing some activity

  • “sacred cows” fair game

  • Rapidly accelerating retirements/electoral turnover

  • Short term (one-cycle) fixes to problems

  • Constant crisis

The next big hurdle election 2014
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

  • Omnibus 2014
    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

    Omnibus 20141
    Omnibus 2014

    (in millions of dollars)

    Omnibus 20142
    Omnibus 2014

    • 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)

    • Winners

      • Head Start

        • Increase over FY 2012 (COLA), plus $500 million for Early Head Start

      • Early Education

        • New $250 million for competitive Race to the Top Early Education program

      • School Nutrition

        • New $25 million in competitive school equipment grants

    O mnibus 2014 policy riders
    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”

    President s proposal
    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)

    Esea senate
    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

  • Esea house
    ESEA: House

    • Student Success Act in (H.R. 5) passed House of Representatives on July 19, 2013

      • Similar to bills passed in 112th Congress

      • Eliminates AYP, HQT requirements

      • States 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

    ESEA: Overall

    Consensus: reauthorization will wait until 2015 or later

    S.S. House


    S.S. Senate

    Waivers so far
    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 (???)

  • States with waivers

    States with applications under review

    Additional waivers
    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

  • Waiver renewal concerns
    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

    What s next for waivers high risk
    What’s Next for Waivers: High Risk

    • States having problems with teacher/principal evaluation systems (all got conditional approval)

      • Kansas

      • Oregon

      • Arizona

      • Washington

  • 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

  • High Stakes for ED

    • 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

    Administration weighs in on disparate discipline joint ed doj letter january 8 2014
    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

    • 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…”

    Community eligibility option
    Community Eligibility Option

    Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, 2010

    Community eligibility option1
    Community Eligibility Option

    • Eligible schools – Free Meals – All students

    • Available to all LEAs 2014-2015 with eligible schools

    Community eligible option
    Community Eligible Option

    • Eligible School

      • 40% students certified-free meals through means other than household application

        SNAP / TANF

    Community eligible option1
    Community Eligible Option

    • Multiplier (initially 1.6)

    • Conduct certification at least once every four years (more frequently optional)

    • Reimbursement based on resulting number

    Community eligibility option2
    Community Eligibility Option

    • Title I Implications:

      • Disaggregation: economically disadvantaged

        All students

      • Eligibility based on poverty:

        All students

    Community eligibility option3
    Community Eligibility Option

    • Title I Implications

      • School Eligibility and Rank and Serve

        Use number from multiplier

    Usda guidance
    USDA Guidance

    • February 25, 2014

    • -LEA may include all or some schools

    • http://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-evaluation

    • -Eligibility may be school x school –

    • -Group or

    • -Aggregate of total

    Recent ferpa guidance
    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]

    Privacy guidance
    Privacy Guidance

    • Focuses on privacy and security considerations relating to:

      • Computer software

      • Mobile 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

    Online activities
    Online Activities

    • Student access for class readings

    • View student’s learning progression

    • Watch video demonstrations

    • Comment on class activities

    • Complete their homework


    • 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.

    Online tools best practices
    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.

    Best practices cont
    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.

    Best practices cont1
    Best Practices (cont.)

    • When possible, use a written contract or legal agreement that includes provisions on:

      • Security and data stewardship

      • Collection of data

      • Use, retention, disclosure, and destruction of data

      • Right of parents and students to access and modify their data

      • Other items where appropriate.

    Best practices cont2
    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

    And finally omb revised administrative cost audit rules governing all federal grants

    And Finally…OMB Revised Administrative, Cost, Audit Rules Governing All Federal Grants

    The Super Circular – “Omni Circular”The One-Stop Shop for Federal Assistance

    Key dates
    Key Dates:

    • Feb 1, 2013 NPRM

    • Dec 19, 2013 Final

    • Dec 26, 2013 Federal Register

    • April 2014 New OMB Compliance Supplement

    • June 26, 2014 ED Draft EDGAR Changes

    • Dec 26, 2014 Final EDGAR Published

    Date of applicability of revised rules
    Date of Applicability of Revised Rules

    • OMB stated on 12/20/13 All Drawdowns, after December 26, 2014

      ? ? ?

    What is covered
    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)

    Who is covered
    Who is covered?

    • All “nonfederal entities” expending federal awards

    Reasons for the change
    Reasons for the Change?

    • Simplicity

    • Consistency

    • Obama Executive Order on Regulatory Review

      • Increase Efficiency

      • Strengthen Oversight

    Who crafted the changes
    Who crafted the changes?

    • “COFAR”

      • Council on Financial Assistance Reform, and Key Stakeholders

      • www.cfo.gov/cofar

    Inconsistency between program statute and circular
    Inconsistency Between Program Statute and Circular

    • If federal program statute or regulation differs from Omni Circular, then statute / regulation governs.

    Most significant change
    Most Significant Change

    • Shift from focus on Compliance to focus on PERFORMANCE!!!


    • Auditors (A-133 + Federal OIG) and Monitors (Federal and State Pass Through) must look more to “outcomes” than to “process”


    • The “Omni Circular” adds significant flexibility to way grantee / subgrantee can adopt their own processes


    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.