Government Home Improvement Grants - PowerPoint

Document Sample
Government Home Improvement Grants - PowerPoint Powered By Docstoc
Robert Kim, NEA Education Policy & Practice

Christy Levings, NEA Executive Committee

                 2010 NCUEA Summer Conference
                 New Orleans, LA
                 June 2010

    ESEA vs. ARRA:
    What’s the Difference?
        ESEA vs. ARRA—What’s the Difference?

       The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
        (ESEA), a.k.a. NCLB
         writtenand authorized by Congress
         continues from year to year until reauthorized
        ESEA vs. ARRA—What’s the Difference?

       The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
        2009 (ARRA)
         includesRace to the Top (RTTT) and additional funds
          for School Improvement Grants (SIG)
         one-time stimulus bill passed by Congress

         Most education-related ARRA program requirements
          come from the U.S. Department of Education
        ESEA vs. ARRA—What’s the Difference?

       In short . . .
                         ARRA is not ESEA
                         ESEA is not ARRA

       But:
        In its ESEA Blueprint, the Obama Administration
        has advocated including some ARRA programs
        within ESEA in the ESEA reauthorization
        ESEA (NCLB) in a Nutshell

       Title I funding and requirements - including testing,
        AYP, school improvement activities, sanctions
       Title II - ―HQT‖ or Highly Qualified Teacher
       Other Titles covering a range of other areas,
           ELL Students
           21st Century Schools/Safe & Drug Free Schools
           Parental Choice & Innovation
           Indian/Native Hawaiian/Alaska Native Education
           Impact Aid
        ARRA in a Nutshell

       a.k.a. ―stimulus bill,‖ ―Recovery Act‖
       $787 billion total (including ~$130 billion for education)
       State Fiscal Stabilization Fund ($48.6 billion)
       Race to the Top ($4 billion)
       Race to the Top assessment competition ($350 million)
       Investing in Innovation (i3) ($650 million)
       Title I School Improvement Grants (SIG) (add’l $3 billion)
       Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) (add’l $200 million)
       And more!
                 ARRA „09 Funding Diagram

    Title I
                         Incentive $200 M
                        Innovation Fund
    $10 B                   $650 M                 $12.2 B
                      Improvement $3 B
                   Race to the Top $4.35 B

           State Fiscal Stabilization $48.6 B

                            K - 12           College & Career
      Learning                                 8

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

 Single largest increase in

   education spending in U.S.
 Saved jobs of 300,000

 Race to the Top Fund

 School Improvement
   Grants (SIG)*
 Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)

*Except transformation model

     Race to the Top Update
     Update on RTTT: Phase I Winners

        Delaware: $100 million
        Tennessee: $500 million
RTTT: Phase I Details

   Only 44 points separated #1 and #16
   Only 5 points separated #5 and #10
   Therefore, union participation mattered
   #1 (DE) was about 13 points ahead of #4 (FL) in terms
    of district and state stakeholder support
   11 of top 15 finalists had varying levels of NEA
    affiliate support
   Among finalists, one Midwest (IL), one West (CO) and
    no Pacific
Phase I Finalists (* Won Phase I)

1.   Delaware*        9.    Kentucky
2.   Tennessee*       10.   Ohio
3.   Georgia          11.   Louisiana
4.   Florida          12.   North Carolina
5.   Illinois         13.   Massachusetts
6.   South Carolina   14.   Colorado
7.   Pennsylvania     15.   New York
8.   Rhode Island     16.   District Of Columbia
     Update on RTTT: Phase II

        35 States + DC applied
        Awards by September 2010
        $ 3.4 billion left after Phase I
        10-15 states expected to win awards
        Only AK, ND, TX and VT did not apply for either Phase
         I or Phase II
        State affiliates had varying levels of support for their
         states’ RTTT plan
        If their State wins, LEAs will have 90 days to sign
        A Word on ―Conditional MOUs‖
     RTTT : NEA Affiliate Response

    State affiliate had varying degrees of support for state’s
     RTTT plan in Phase 1 or Phase 2 or both (37): AL, AR, AZ,
     CO, CT, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, KS, MI, MA, MS, MO,
     MT, NC, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN,
     UT, VA, WA, WI, WV, WY

    State affiliate did NOT support state’s application in either
     Phase 1, Phase 2 or both phases (9): CA, GA, LA, MD, ME,
     MN, NJ, RI, SD

    States that never applied for RTTT (4): AK, ND, TX, VT

    Some locals expressed independent activities/levels of
     support for or involvement with RTTT
 BOLD=Phase 1 and Phase 2

     School Improvement
     Grants (SIG) Update
     Update on School Improvement Grants (SIG)

        School Improvement Grants = $3.5 Billion total
        Formula grants to states to address ―persistently low-
         achieving schools‖
        Choice of 4 models: Turnaround, Restart, Closure, and
        32 States + DC have received SIG funds so far (June
         24, 2010)
        LEAs will apply to States for grants in 2010
        Grants may be renewed for up to 3 years through
     SIG: The 4 Models

        Turnaround
        Closure
        Restart
        Transformation
        Other Issues:
          Ruleof 9 (Transformation Model)
          NCLB Timeline Reset (Turnaround/Restart)

          See NEA Priority Schools Campaign at
     SIG: The 3 Tiers

        Tier I: Title I schools in bottom 5 or bottom 5%
         (whichever is greater) of schools in NCLB
         improvement stages in the state OR Title I high
         schools with <60% graduation rate over 2+ years
        Tier II: Title I-eligible secondary schools that are in
         bottom 5 or bottom 5% (whichever is greater) in the
         state OR high schools with <60% graduation rate
         over 2+ years
        Tier III: A Title I school in NCLB improvement stages
         that is not in Tier I (or Tier II)
     Newly Eligible SIG schools

        As a result of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
         2010, states may now identify certain additional
         schools as Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III schools if such
          Are  eligible for Title I, Part A funds, and
          Have not made AYP for 2+ consecutive years OR fall in
           bottom 20% of state based on NCLB test results, and
          For Tier I/II schools - are no higher achieving than the
           highest-achieving school within the tier or (for Tier II)
           have graduation rate <60% for 2+yrs.
          For Tier III schools – don’t meet the requirements to be
           in Tier I or II.
     SIG: Issues for LEAs/Districts

        States have made or will make applications available
         to LEAs/school districts this year (2010) and include a
         list of eligible schools
        LEAs/school districts that apply must determine which
         schools will be served by SIG and which turnaround
         model will apply (for Tier I/II schools)
        Intervention models in Tier I and Tier II schools using FY
         2009 SIG funds must be implemented in 2010-2011
         school year – but not all reforms within the model need
         to occur in 2010-2011
        State may carry over some funds over for use after
        States or districts may apply for a waiver to use SIG
         funds beyond 2013

     ESEA in 2010: Obama Blueprint
      ESEA in 2010: Obama Blueprint

      College- and Career-Ready Students
      Great Teachers and Leaders in Every School
      Equity and Opportunity for All Students
      Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence
      Promote Innovation and Continuous Improvement
     ED: „Blueprint for Reform‟

      Raise the bar for all students; Close the gap

            Tight on goals; Loose on means

        Foster innovation and reward success

             Build on the four assurances
     ED: „Blueprint for Reform‟

     Current Law                                  vs.              Blueprint
           Lowered the bar                                       Raise the bar
            Because of wrong incentives                    Focus on college and career readiness

            Too prescriptive                                  Greater flexibility
               For too many schools                     For all but lowest-performing & gap schools

               Too punitive                                 Recognize success
        Even where progress is being made               Reward and learn from progress & growth

       Narrowed curriculum                              Well-rounded education
         Focusing on tests in math and ELA                  Allow all subjects, fund better tests

     Focus on gaps & equity
     Focus on achievement of all student groups
                                                  =      Focus on gaps & equity
                                                        Maintain focus + appropriate interventions
     College & Career Ready Students

         Common Core standards reform
         Better assessments aligned with Common Core
         Well-rounded education
     Blueprint: Great Teachers & Leaders in Every

         ―Effective teachers and principals‖
           Includesteacher & principal evaluation and expanded
            Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)
         Equitable access to effective teachers and
          principals in high-poverty, high-minority schools
         Strengthen teacher and leader preparation and
     Blueprint: Equity and Opportunity for All

         Rigorous and fair accountability for all levels
           ―Reward‖ vs. ―Challenge‖ schools
           All students graduating or on track and ready for
           college and career by 2020
         Meet the needs of diverse learners
         Greater equity in resources
     Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence

         Race to the Top expansion to local districts
         Supporting ―effective public school choice‖
           Includes   charter schools and other autonomous public
         Increase access to accelerated learning and
          challenging college-level curricula
     Blueprint: Promote Innovation and
         Continuous Improvement

         Investing in Innovation (i3) Program expansion
         More competitive funding
         New models in school redesign, extended learning,
          community schools
     Behind the Blueprint: “The Fine Print”

      NEA Concerns:
       Continued emphasis on NCLB-style tests

       Weak on multiple measures of student learning

       Teacher effectiveness proposal has problems

       Lack of effective school turnaround strategies

       Shift toward untested competitive programs

       Where’s the collaboration?

       Where’s the parent/family engagement?

       Equity rhetoric not matched by policy

     NEA Response and ESEA
     Reauthorization Priorities
     NEA‟s ESEA Purpose Statement

     The public education system is critical to democracy and its
       purpose is to:
      maximize the achievement, skills, opportunities, and potential

       of all students by promoting their strengths and addressing
       their needs
      ensure that all students are prepared to thrive in a democratic

       society and in a diverse and rapidly changing world as
       knowledgeable, creative, and engaged citizens and lifelong
     NEA‟s Top ESEA Messages

        Promote innovation in schools
        Provide students with multiple ways to show what
         they have learned
        Elevate the profession to attract great educators
         and leaders for every public school
        Champion adequate, equitable and sustainable
         funding for all public schools
NEA Principles for ESEA Reauthorization

      Federal government should serve as a partner to
       transform public schools
      Ensure that all children, especially the most
       disadvantaged, have access to an education that will
       prepare them to succeed in the 21st century
      Accountability system must correctly identify schools in
       need of assistance - and provide effective interventions
NEA Principles for ESEA Reauthorization

      School employees must have supports and resources to
       help students succeed
      Target high-poverty schools and remedy inequities

      Respect state and local collective bargaining

      Maintain/expand targeted programs that support students
       or schools with unique needs
      Federal government should serve as research
       clearinghouse on best practices
     What NEA Is Doing

         Full ESEA Campaign in Swing
         Obtaining Stories and Input from Members
         Member Advocacy
         Media & Public Outreach
         Testimony on Capitol Hill in Senate and House
         Written ESEA Responses to House and Senate
         Detailed Policy and Legislative Analysis & Strategizing
          in Progress
         Continuing Advocacy with Administration and Congress
          in Partnership with NEA Affiliates
Elements of NEA Campaign

Legislative team: lobbying,            Outreach team: education
relationships, strategies, hearings,   groups, unions, minorities,
teletown halls                         progressive funders, other
Policy team: analysis, issue           potential partners
briefs, testimony, comments            Field operations: gathering
Political team: intelligence,          data, engaging members
relationships, strategies              State affiliate contact team:
Communications team:                   coordination, feedback
messages, publicity                    Finance team: budgeting
Scheduling team: planning,             Legal team: future options,
integration, coordination              regulatory language
Goals of the ESEA Campaign
Overall Objective:                Organizational Goals:
   Passing an ESEA                  Strengthening grassroots — on the
    reauthorization bill we can       ground and online — and increasing
                                      member engagement.
                                     Enhancing outreach to — and
                                      advocacy by — partners in support of
                                      our objectives.
                                     Using communications strategically —
                                      to promote our vision and respond
                                      effectively to attacks.
                                     Maximizing policy, research, and legal
                                      expertise — to arm our affiliates and
                                      allies with powerful advocacy tools.
Timeline for ESEA Reauthorization
   Draft language may be not be released until late summer,
    leaving little time for floor votes.
   November elections: even tighter vote margins likely, control
    of pro-public education House at stake.
   Our job is to influence drafting of legislative language —
    happening NOW!!!
   If Congress doesn’t act this year, the new Congress is likely
    to pick up where this one leaves off.
Help Us Convince Congress
               Visit the Legislative Action Center.
               Sign up for Education Votes at
               Become a Facebook fan: speak up for
                education and kids — and tell your
                friends to speak up!
               Text NEA4KIDS to 77007 for alerts.
               Write letters to the editor (150 words)
                and op-eds (600 words). We can
                provide samples and help with
                drafting — just ask!

            QUESTIONS?
            COMMENTS?
            FEEDBACK?

Description: Government Home Improvement Grants document sample